Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Aug 26;21(8):e0353377. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0353377

Modeling the role of fertilizers and improved seeds on rice productivity in Tanzania using a stochastic simulation approach

Ibrahim L Kadigi 1,*, Lazaro Kagata 1, Stefan Sieber 2,3
Editor: Nickson Erick Otieno4
PMCID: PMC13514031  PMID: 42647429

Abstract

Climate change poses a significant threat to food production in Tanzania, particularly for smallholder farmers who rely on rain-fed agriculture. This study examines the role of improved seeds and fertilizers as climate adaptation strategies to boost rice productivity and food security. Using data from the 2019/20 National Sample Census of Agriculture (NSCA), the study analyzed 6,025 rice farms from Mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar. A Stochastic Simulation model was used to account for yield variability and uncertainty. Farms were classified by seed type (local or improved) and fertilizer use (organic, inorganic, or none). Findings show that using improved seeds with inorganic fertilizers significantly enhances productivity, with a 16% chance of achieving yields above 4.5 t/ha. This combination also reduced the risk of falling below food security thresholds. In contrast, farms using local seeds, even with fertilizers, had only a 10% chance of reaching that yield level. The impact was more notable in Mainland Tanzania (25%) than in Zanzibar (6%). While organic fertilizers improve soil health, they offer limited short-term yield gains. The study concludes that promoting access to improved seeds and inorganic fertilizers is crucial for enhancing rice productivity and achieving the SDG 2 goal of Zero Hunger in Tanzania.

Introduction

Climate change poses a significant and growing threat to global food security, with particularly severe consequences for smallholder farming systems in sub-Saharan Africa that depend largely on rain-fed agriculture. Increasing temperature extremes, erratic rainfall patterns, and the rising frequency of droughts and floods have intensified yield variability and production risk, undermining the stability of food systems and rural livelihoods [1–7]. In Tanzania, these climatic pressures are compounded by limited access to modern agricultural inputs, low levels of mechanization, and persistent yield gaps, particularly among smallholder rice farmers [8–12].

Rice is a strategic staple crop in Tanzania, contributing significantly to national food security, rural employment, and household income. Demand for rice has grown rapidly due to population growth, urbanization, and dietary transitions, yet average yields remain substantially below attainable levels compared with other major rice-producing regions [13–16]. National policy frameworks and development strategies, including Tanzania’s agricultural transformation agenda and the Tanzania Seed Sector Development Strategy [17], consistently emphasize the promotion of improved seed varieties and fertilizer use as key pathways for closing yield gaps, stabilizing production, and achieving Sustainable Development Goal 2 (Zero Hunger) [9,10,18–22].

A substantial body of empirical literature documents that improved seed varieties enhance yield potential, stress tolerance, and responsiveness to nutrients, while fertilizer use supplies essential macro- and micronutrients required to realize this potential [15,23–25]. Studies further distinguish between the short-term productivity gains associated with inorganic fertilizers and the longer-term soil health and sustainability benefits of organic fertilizers and integrated nutrient management approaches [26–29]. Recent evidence from sub-Saharan Africa suggests that combining improved seeds with appropriate fertilizer regimes can substantially reduce yield gaps, although outcomes vary across agroecological zones and management contexts [15,18,25,30].

Despite this extensive literature, most existing studies evaluate the impacts of seed and fertilizer use based on mean-based indicators of productivity or focus on the socioeconomic determinants of adoption (e.g., access to credit, extension services, and markets). While such analyses are valuable, they provide limited insight into production risk, yield uncertainty, and food security outcomes, which are central concerns for smallholder households operating in highly variable, climate-sensitive environments [13,31,32]. In practice, farmers and policymakers are often less concerned with average yields than with the likelihood of yield gaps or harvest shortfalls that can potentially jeopardize food security or depress projected profit margins.

From a methodological standpoint, traditional econometric approaches such as ordinary least squares or generalized linear models are well-suited for estimating conditional mean effects. Still, they are less informative for evaluating downside risk and the probability of extreme outcomes. Smallholder rice yields in Tanzania are highly heterogeneous, often non-normally distributed, and strongly influenced by agroecological variability and management differences [2,11]. Stochastic and probabilistic simulation methods, particularly Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS), are increasingly used in agricultural economics and risk analysis to address these challenges by modeling full outcome distributions rather than single-point estimates [33–35]. Such approaches allow explicit estimation of the probability that yields fall below critical food-security thresholds or exceed aspirational productivity targets, making them especially relevant for policy analysis under uncertainty [1,4].

However, nationally representative applications of stochastic simulation to evaluate alternative seed–fertilizer pathways in Tanzania’s rice sector remain limited. Existing studies often rely on experimental plots, localized surveys, or adoption models without linking observed management practices to risk-adjusted food-security outcomes across regions and agroecological zones [12,16]. Consequently, there is insufficient evidence on how different combinations of local versus improved seeds and organic versus inorganic fertilizers translate into the probability of achieving food-security-relevant yield targets at scale.

This study addresses this gap by applying a stochastic simulation framework to nationally representative data from the 2019/20 National Sample Census of Agriculture (NSCA). By modeling yield distributions for alternative seed–fertilizer combinations and evaluating their probabilities relative to minimum and maximum food security thresholds, the study advances knowledge beyond mean-based analyses. Specifically, the central research question guiding this analysis is: What is the likelihood that a given seed–fertilizer practice enables rice-farming households to exceed an upper yield target while avoiding yields below a minimum food-security threshold under conditions of production uncertainty?

By answering this question for Mainland Tanzania, Zanzibar, and major rice-producing agroecological zones, the study provides policy-relevant evidence on the relative merits of alternative input strategies. By answering this question and filling the knowledge gap, this study pursues three objectives: (1) to estimate and compare stochastic yield distributions for rice farming practices defined by seed type and fertilizer use; (2) to quantify and rank the probabilities that each practice exceeds an upper yield target (4.5 t/ha) and avoids falling below a minimum food-security threshold (2.0 t/ha) across Mainland Tanzania, Zanzibar, and major rice-producing agroecological zones; and (3) to statistically assess whether yield distributions under improved-input practices differ significantly from the baseline practice (local seeds without fertilizer). In doing so, it contributes to the design of targeted, risk-informed interventions to enhance rice productivity, stabilize food supplies, and support Tanzania’s progress toward SDG 2 (Zero Hunger).

Materials and methods

Study area

This study focuses on rice farms from both mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar. The study also delves deeper into the two major rice agroecological zones: the eastern zone (mainly the Morogoro region) and the southern highlands zone (mainly the Mbeya region). These zones are characterized by distinct climatic patterns, soil types, and farming systems, significantly shaping rice productivity in Tanzania. By grouping rice farms into specific agroecological zones, this research enables a detailed examination of how farming practices, particularly fertilizer and seed use, perform under varied ecological conditions. This approach ensures that the study’s findings are representative and practical for implementation across the country and within the major rice-producing regions, benefiting farmers, agricultural policymakers, and development agencies.

The division into agroecological zones facilitates a comparative analysis of farming practices, highlighting their effectiveness in different environmental contexts. Such comparisons are crucial for developing region-specific strategies that optimize the use of agricultural inputs and enhance crop yields. Moreover, analyzing how each zone responds to climatic and environmental challenges allows for better planning and the development of climate-resilient farming systems. This level of detail supports the creation of localized policies that address region-specific constraints, ultimately contributing to sustainable and adaptive agricultural growth in Tanzania.

The six agroecological zones selected for this study include:

  • i

    Rice farms in Mainland Tanzania, including all regions: Kagera, Mara, Mwanza, Simiyu, Geita, Shinyanga, Kigoma, Tabora, Arusha, Manyara, Kilimanjaro, Tanga, Dodoma, Singida, Katavi, Kigoma, Rukwa, Mbeya, Songwe, Njombe, Iringa, Morogoro, Lindi, Pwani, Dar-es-salaam, Ruvuma, Mtwara.

  • ii

    Rice farms in Zanzibar (Mjini Magharibi, Kusini Unguja, Kaskazini Unguja).

  • iii

    Rice farms in the Eastern Zone (EZ), mainly in the Morogoro region.

  • iv

    Rice farms in the Southern Highlands Zone (SHZ), mainly in the Mbeya region.

This classification captures Tanzania’s agricultural heterogeneity, enabling a robust analysis of productivity trends across ecological zones. The study identifies the most effective interventions to improve rice yields by considering these variations. It supports evidence-based policy decisions to close the productivity gap in Tanzania’s rice production.

Data sources

Tanzania has conducted five National Sample Censuses of Agriculture (NSCA) as of the 2019/2020 census, marking the most recent; the first census took place in 1971/1972, followed by the second in 1994/1995, the third in 2002/2003, and the fourth in 2007/2008. This study primarily uses data from the 2019/20 National Sample Census of Agriculture (NSCA), which is the most recent nationally representative agricultural census conducted in Tanzania. The census was implemented by the Tanzania National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) in collaboration with the World Bank, under the authority of the United Republic of Tanzania, and provides comprehensive, up-to-date information on crop production, input use, and farm characteristics [36]. The World Bank also plays a significant role in the NSCA data collection process, primarily by providing technical assistance, funding, and logistical support rather than serving as the direct field collector. The immediately preceding 2007/08 NSCA was used only as a historical reference to normalize and adjust the 2019/20 yield distributions within the stochastic simulation framework, thereby improving temporal comparability without substituting current production conditions. The 2019/20 NSCA employed a two-stage sampling design covering 2,820 Primary Sampling Units (PSUs), of which 2,670 were located in Mainland Tanzania and 150 in Zanzibar. From these PSUs, a total of 6,145 rice-producing households were identified and included in this analysis, comprising 5,536 households in Mainland Tanzania and 609 in Zanzibar. The NSCA serves as a comprehensive repository of information, capturing key aspects of agricultural households, including farm size, crop production, livestock holdings, and the use of agricultural inputs such as fertilizers and seeds. Additionally, the census examines rural infrastructure improvements and the living standards of farming households, offering valuable benchmarks for evaluating agricultural productivity and the impact of agricultural interventions implemented by various stakeholders, including Agricultural Sector Lead Ministries (ASLMs).

To ensure nationwide representativeness, the NSCA employed a two-stage sampling methodology. In the first stage, Census Enumeration Areas (CEAs) from the 2012 Population and Housing Census were systematically selected as Primary Sampling Units (PSUs). In the NSCA sampling design, PSUs were allocated proportionally across regions and districts based on the distribution of agricultural households in the national sampling frame. This proportional allocation ensured that areas with higher agricultural activity contributed a larger share of the sample. PSUs and households within PSUs were then systematically selected using an interval-based procedure with a random start, ensuring spatially even coverage and reducing selection bias. Together, these procedures underpin the national and regional representativeness of the data used in this study. In the second stage, agricultural households within the selected PSUs were randomly sampled, with a focus on households actively engaged in crop cultivation and livestock production.

The sampling process covered a total of 2,820 PSUs, comprising 2,670 PSUs from Mainland Tanzania and 150 PSUs from Tanzania Zanzibar. The sampling strategy employed a Probability Proportional to Size (PPS) technique, which prioritizes areas with higher agricultural activity, thereby enhancing the reliability and accuracy of the data. Details of the sampling procedure, including design and implementation, can be found in the official NSCA report [36]. The NSCA dataset used in this study focuses primarily on crop production and input use and does not collect detailed livestock production variables suitable for integrated crop–livestock system analysis. Consequently, all households identified as rice producers within the sampled Primary Sampling Units (PSUs) were included in the analysis, irrespective of livestock ownership, and no livestock-based sampling or filtering criteria were applied.

Data processing and simulation

The first stage of the analysis involved organizing the NSCA production data by systematically classifying farms according to both farming practices and location: Mainland Tanzania, Zanzibar, and the two major rice-producing agroecological zones (AEZs): the Eastern Zone and the Southern Highlands Zone. Farms were categorized into six distinct farming practices based on seed type and fertilizer application. The baseline category, denoted as F1.0, comprises farms using local seeds without fertilizer. Alternative practices include F1.1 and F1.2, representing farms using local seeds combined with organic and inorganic fertilizers, respectively. Similarly, F2.0, F2.1, and F2.2 denote farms using improved seeds without fertilizer, with organic fertilizers, and with inorganic fertilizers, respectively. Table 1 presents the distribution of observations across these farming practices for both Mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar, as classified in the NSCA dataset. Further details on the simulation procedures applied to these categorized data are provided in subsequent sections.

Table 1. Number of observations for rice farms in mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar under different fertilizer and seed types farming practices.

Farming practices Mainland Tanzania Zanzibar Total
Farms in mainland TZ Farms in Morogoro Farms in Mbeya Farms in Zanzibar All TZ farms
Farming Practice 1 (F1.0) 4,073 768 369 179 4,252
Farming Practice 2 (F1.1) 646 100 204 132 778
Farming Practice 3 (F1.2) 581 95 187 123 704
Farming Practice 4 (F2.0) 129 28 22 58 187
Farming Practice 5 (F2.1) 6 – – – 6
Farming Practice 6 (F2.2) 101 15 59 117 218
Total 5,536 1,006 841 609 6,145

Note: FP1.0 = local seeds without fertilizers; F1.1 = local seeds with organic fertilizers; F1.2 = local seeds with inorganic fertilizers; F2.0 = improved seeds without fertilizer; F2.1 = improved seeds with organic fertilizers; F2.2 = improved seeds with inorganic fertilizers.

Deterministic yield computation

Before simulation, for each farming practice (defined in Table 1), all household-level rice production data were converted into yield per hectare (t/ha) to ensure unit consistency and comparability across farms. The analysis focuses exclusively on rice crop production; livestock variables were not included. Data were stratified by seed type, fertilizer application, and spatial unit, and observed yields were then transformed into fractional deviations from their group-specific means. These dimensionless deviations served as the empirical basis for a Probabilistic Simulation Approach (PSA) under Monte Carlo Simulation procedures and were rescaled to yield levels during model execution, ensuring consistency of scale across farming systems and agroecological zones [21,22].

Equation (1) is the deterministic yield, which was calculated as the ratio of total tonnage harvested to the area harvested (in hectares):

 yield (y¯c,i)=Tones harvested (tones)Hectares harvested (a) (1)

This step provided the base mean yield values per hectare for each farming practice at each farm location, laying the foundation for subsequent stochastic simulations.

Stochastic yield simulation using the Monte Carlo simulation protocol

Since we have several independent random yields from both the Tanzania mainland, Zanzibar, and selected AEZs, with different numbers of observations, a Univariate Empirical (UVE) was first parameterized. The UVA was used because it enables probabilistic simulation, which is the study's principal research question. The UVE was simulated to develop an independent, uncorrelated sample size of 500 for each farming practice. The deterministic yield computed in Equation 1 was converted into stochastic form (Equation 2), where a random shock factor (ε) was introduced to capture unexplained yield variability. In the stochastic simulation model, household sample size is incorporated implicitly through the empirical yield distributions constructed for each farming practice and region. Specifically, the deterministic mean yield (y¯i) per each farming system i and the empirical distribution of fractional deviations from the mean (Sy,i) are derived from observed household-level yields within each PSU and agroecological zone and form the basis for the Monte Carlo simulation.

Unlike approaches that primarily estimate mean yield differences under strong parametric assumptions, MCS reproduces the full yield distribution, allowing explicit characterization of downside risk and upside potential. This is particularly important for smallholder rice systems where yield outcomes are heterogeneous, often non-normal, and sensitive to agroecological conditions and management variability. Equation 3 expresses how the stochastic yields were simulated. The equation uses the Simetar function (EMP()) to simulate yields, resulting in a percentage deviation from the mean.

y~i= y¯i*ε (2)

Where the ε is a random shock factor expressed as yi−y¯i

y~i=y¯i*(1+EMP(Sy,i,P(Sy,i),ISNDy,i))*βy~0 (3)

Where:

~ = A tilde represents a randomness (stochastic) variable.

i =Type of farming practices used (F1.0, F1.1, F1.2, F2.0, F2.1 and F2.2).

ai = Hectares (ha) allocated for farming practice i

y~i = Stochastic mean yield per ha for farming practice i

y―i = Deterministic (mean) yield per ha for farming practice i

βy~0 = The normalization factor, which is given by y~c,iy~h,i and it is used to scale/adjust the 2019/20 NCSA mean yield.

y~c = Stochastic yield for the current survey (2019/20 NCSA)

y~h = Stochastic yield for the historical or previous survey (2007/08 NCSA)

Sy = Fraction deviations from the mean or sorted array of random yields for farming practice i

P(Sy) = Cumulative probability function for the Sy values

ISNDy = Simetar function to simulate the independent standard normal deviates.

EMP() = Simetar function used to simulate a stochastic variable (yield)

The Independent Standard Normal Deviate (ISND) function was incorporated into the UVE model to introduce a source of stochastic variability into the simulation outputs. This function allows the simulated values to reflect the probabilistic uncertainty inherent in the empirical distribution of the variable being modeled. The ISND is typically denoted as ε ~ N(0, 1), which implies a standard normal distribution with a mean of zero (0) and a standard deviation of one (1). It operates independently of other random draws or variables in the simulation, ensuring uncorrelated randomness in each iteration. To generate a sufficiently large and representative sample for each farming practice, Equation (3) was simulated using the Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS) technique within the Simetar software environment. The procedure followed the guidelines established by Richardson et al. [33] and extended by Rezende & Richardson [37] and Kadigi et al. [20,35]. The LHS method was used due to its efficiency in producing representative samples from complex probability distributions while requiring relatively few simulation runs. In this study, 500 iterations were conducted per farming system, a sample size considered adequate to capture the key statistical characteristics of the parent yield distributions.

A crucial component of the analytical process was model validation. Simulated yields generated from the UVE model were systematically compared to historical observations using statistical goodness-of-fit tests and probability density functions (PDFs). This comparison aimed to verify the consistency between the empirical and simulated yield distributions. The validation results confirmed that the stochastic model accurately replicated both the magnitude and variability of observed yields while preserving the underlying probabilistic structure introduced through Monte Carlo sampling. This alignment between simulated and actual data reinforces the model's reliability, confirming that the simulated outcomes are representative, unbiased, and robust enough to evaluate productivity across Tanzania’s diverse agroecological zones.

Correlated uniform standard deviation (CUSD) of random yields

Following the validation of univariate simulations, a more robust multivariate model was developed using the Multivariate Empirical (MVE) distribution. This method used UVE output (simulated samples from 500 iterations per farming system) to estimate yield outcomes while accounting for interdependencies across farming practices per regional and AEZs. The process began with the calculation of residuals, representing percentage deviations of individual yield values from their respective means. Again, these deviations were derived using the Empirical function (EMP), which facilitated the parameterization of the MVE distribution. The residuals were then used to generate a correlation matrix following the methodology outlined by Richardson et al. [33,38,39] and Kadigi et al. [20,35]. A core advantage of the MVE approach is its ability to simulate multiple variables concurrently while preserving realistic correlations. This prevents implausible values, such as negative yields, and enhances the credibility of model outputs by reflecting the actual patterns observed in the data across regions and input scenarios.

To introduce correlated variability into the simulation, the derived correlation matrix was applied to transform the Independent Standard Normal Deviates (ISNDs) into Correlated Standard Normal Deviates (CSNDs). These CSNDs were subsequently converted to Correlated Uniform Standard Deviates (CUSDs) via an inverse transformation. The resulting CUSDs were used to stochastically generate empirically ranked fractional deviations, which provided the random component for simulating yield outcomes. This step was operationalized using the = CUSD() function built into the Simetar software. The MVE framework effectively captured the inherent variability in yield data while also accounting for spatial and management-related dependencies across the dataset. This allowed the simulation of spatially explicit, probabilistically valid yield scenarios that realistically reflected the diversity of farming conditions in Tanzania.

The final formulation of the MVE model is presented in Equation (4):

y~sim,i=y¯c,i*(1+EMP(Sy,i,P(Sy,i),CUSDy,i)) (4)

Where:

sim = Yield from the simulated dataset.

CUSDy = Simetar function to simulate the correlated uniform standard deviation of random variables.

Before final analysis, the outputs generated from the MVE model were subjected to a second round of validation against historical yield data. This double-validation procedure helped ensure that the statistical properties and distributional characteristics of the simulated yields remained consistent with observed patterns. As a result, the simulated data were confirmed to be statistically reliable, well-calibrated, and suitable for evaluating the effects of fertilizer practices across Tanzania’s agroecological zones.

Ranking of target probabilities using the stoplight function

To facilitate ranking, we consulted with experts in rice production and farmers, asking them to specify the range of food security thresholds for rice production and to set two thresholds: the maximum and minimum.

Maximum food security threshold

The leading question here was: What is the maximum number of 100 kg bags of rice you need to harvest per hectare to ensure your family's food is secure? This question aims to determine the optimal level of rice production per hectare that rice farmers aspire to achieve to feel completely secure in their family’s food provision. The response helped identify the upper yield benchmark for rice that ensures sufficiency and an ideal surplus for the family’s consumption and the market, given rice's status as both a staple food and a significant agricultural commodity in Tanzania. This figure depicts the farmers’ goals under ideal growing conditions and efficient farming practices, where yields are high enough to meet all food needs and potentially generate economic benefits through sales.

Minimum food security threshold

The leading question here was: What is the minimum number of 100 kg bags of rice you need to harvest per hectare to ensure your family's food security? This question seeks to establish the critical minimum yield level below which rice farmers perceive a severe risk of food insecurity. The question was designed to understand the lowest acceptable yield that would barely meet the basic food requirements of the farmer’s family without considering selling rice for income. The responses indicated the vulnerability threshold for food insecurity among smallholder rice farmers in Tanzania, highlighting the amount of rice needed to avoid the most severe economic and nutritional consequences. This threshold is crucial for planning interventions and support systems to prevent rice yields from falling below it, safeguarding against increased hunger risk and economic instability.

The Stoplight Chart function was used to rank the probabilities that rice farms would achieve the maximum yield threshold and those that would fall below the minimum threshold (Fig 1). The stoplight function calculates the probabilities of (a) exceeding the upper target (green), (b) being less than the lower target (red), and (c) falling between the targets (yellow). The experts’ and farmers’ responses indicated that farmers were likely to be happier if their yield was equal to or greater than 4.48 t/ha; hence, the maximum threshold set was 4.5 t/ha. On the other hand, the farmers’ responses revealed that yields below 2.01 t/ha would make them unhappy, with the highest likelihood of being food-insured, so we set the minimum threshold at 2.0 t/ha.

Fig 1. Stoplight chart for ranking of target probabilities.

Fig 1

Red shows the unfavorable probability, yellow is cautionary probability and green is required or favorable probability.

Results

The findings of this study were organized into four main categories. First, we validated the stochastic model used for the analysis to ensure it accurately simulated the farming practices under investigation. The results of this model validation are detailed in the supporting information section. Following validation, the second step involved examining the impact of the selected farming practices on rice farms across Tanzania, including those on the Mainland and in Zanzibar (S1 File.). Additionally, the analysis extended to assess the impact on farms located in high-producing agroecological zones, specifically the Southern Highlands Zone (SHZ) and the Eastern & Coastal zone (ECZ).

Impact of seed and fertilizer combinations on rice yield and food security across Tanzanian farms

Table 2 presents summary statistics of rice yield (t/ha) across various farming setups in Mainland Tanzania, Zanzibar, and the entire country, highlighting differences in yield between local and improved seed use under various fertilizer regimes. On average, farms across Tanzania using local seeds without fertilizer (F1.0) recorded a yield of 2.08 t/ha, increasing slightly to 2.32 t/ha and 2.31 t/ha under organic (F1.1) and inorganic fertilizers (F1.2), respectively, suggesting that fertilizer use improves yields even with local seeds. However, yield variations exist between Zanzibar and the Mainland. For instance, Zanzibar farms under F1.0 had a lower mean yield (1.54 t/ha) than those on the Mainland (2.10 t/ha), and this trend persists across F1.1 and F1.2 setups, suggesting relatively limited productivity in Zanzibar. In contrast, farms using improved seeds (F2.0, F2.1, F2.2) showed notably higher yields. Across Tanzania, the mean yield increases from 2.08 t/ha (F2.0, no fertilizer) to 2.78 t/ha (F2.2, with inorganic fertilizer), with a peak yield of 8.65 t/ha. In Mainland Tanzania, the highest average yield was recorded under F2.2 at 3.36 t/ha, substantially outperforming yields under F1. In contrast, Zanzibar still lags behind with lower mean values (e.g., 1.76 t/ha under F2.0). The coefficient of variation (CV) indicates that variability is higher under improved seed systems without fertilizers (F2.0) and lower under inorganic fertilizer use (F2.2), particularly in Mainland Tanzania, implying more stable yield outcomes with complementary inputs. Minimum and maximum values reinforce the substantial yield potential under improved systems. These results highlight the productivity advantage of improved seeds, particularly when combined with inorganic fertilizers, and indicate regional yield disparities between the Mainland and Zanzibar. This provides strong justification for targeted interventions that promote improved seed and fertilizer adoption, particularly in low-yielding zones such as Zanzibar.

Table 2. Summary statistics on yield distribution (in t/ha) for farms located in Mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar.

Farms in Tanzania Zanzibar&Mainland Summary Statistics
Mean SDT CV Min Max
Farms using local seeds (plus no fertilizer, organic and inorganic fertilizers)
All Farms in Tanzania under_F1.0 2.08 1.13 54.58 0.13 6.23
All Farms in Tanzania under_F1.1 2.32 1.32 56.86 0.16 6.18
All Farms in Tanzania under_F1.2 2.31 1.32 54.12 0.12 6.18
All Farms in Zanzibar Tanzania under_F1.0 1.54 0.93 57.11 0.06 5.44
All Farms in Zanzibar Tanzania under_F1.1 1.64 0.84 60.38 0.04 4.94
All Farms in Zanzibar Tanzania under_F1.2 1.62 0.81 51.48 0.04 4.45
All Farms in Mainland Tanzania under_F1.0 2.10 1.14 49.72 0.13 6.23
All Farms in Mainland Tanzania under_F1.1 2.46 1.36 54.12 0.37 6.18
All Farms in Mainland Tanzania under_F1.2 2.46 1.36 55.13 0.37 6.18
Farms using improved seeds (plus no fertilizer, organic and inorganic fertilizers)
All Farms in Tanzania under_F2.0 2.08 1.28 61.62 0.00 8.65
All Farms in Tanzania under_F2.1 2.48 1.34 54.05 0.62 6.18
All Farms in Tanzania under_F2.2 2.78 1.51 54.22 0.03 6.42
All Farms in Zanzibar Tanzania under_F2.0 1.76 1.42 80.76 0.02 8.65
All Farms in Zanzibar Tanzania under_F2.1 2.54 1.54 60.61 0.62 6.18
All Farms in Zanzibar Tanzania under_F2.2 2.14 1.28 59.85 0.25 6.42
All Farms in Mainland Tanzania under_F2.0 2.22 1.19 53.48 0.00 6.23
All Farms in Mainland Tanzania under_F2.1 2.41 0.98 40.86 1.16 4.94
All Farms in Mainland Tanzania under_F2.2 3.36 1.46 43.38 0.03 6.13

Note: F1.0 = farms using local seeds without fertilizers; _F1.1 farms using local seeds with organic fertilizer, and _F1.2 = farms using local seeds with organic fertilizers; _F2.0 = farms using improved seeds without fertilizers; _F2.1 farms using improved seeds with organic fertilizer; and _F2.2 = farms using improved seeds with inorganic fertilizers.

Fig 2 presents the impact of different seed and fertilizer combinations on rice yield probabilities across Tanzania, highlighting the significant impact of these agricultural practices on food security. The results are divided into two sets: one analyzing farms using local seeds (Fig 2a) and the other using improved seeds (Fig 2b), each with variations in fertilizer use. For farms using local seeds without any fertilizer (F1.0), the majority (64%) of yields fall below the minimum food security threshold of 2.0 t/ha, indicating high food insecurity, with only 31% achieving moderate yields and a mere 5% exceeding the maximum threshold of 4.5 t/ha. Introducing organic fertilizer (F1.1) to local seeds decreases the percentage of yields below the threshold to 58%, improves moderate yields to 33%, and increases higher yields to 10%. These findings suggest that organic fertilizers can partially alleviate the yield constraints associated with local seeds, though the improvement is modest. Switching to inorganic fertilizer (F1.2) with local seeds shows a pattern similar to that of local seeds plus organic fertilizer, with 58% of yields remaining below the threshold and almost 10% exceeding the maximum threshold. In other words, across rice farms in Tanzania, inorganic fertilizers have a relatively equal impact as organic fertilizers when local rice seeds are used.

Fig 2. Probabilities of the productivity falling above the maximum food security threshold of 4.5 t/ha (in green) and less than the minimum food security threshold of 2.0 t/ha (in red), and the probability of falling between the two food security for rice farms using local seeds with different types of fertilizers (Figure 2a) and those farms using improved seeds (Figure 2b) for all rice farms in Tanzania.

Fig 2

Fig 2a includes_F1.0 = Tanzanian farms using local seeds without fertilizers; _F1.1 farms using local seeds with organic fertilizer, and _F1.2 = farms using local seeds with organic fertilizers. Fig 2b includes_F2.0 = farms using improved seeds without fertilizers; _F2.1 farms using improved seeds with organic fertilizer; and _F2.2 = farms using improved seeds with inorganic fertilizers.

Farmers using improved seeds with various fertilizer applications exhibit different yield probabilities. For example, farmers using improved seeds without fertilizer (F2.0) had a relatively high probability (68%) of rice productivity falling below the threshold. Still, they performed better in the high-yield (7%) category than local seeds without fertilizer (5%). Combining improved seeds with organic fertilizer (F2.1) further enhances outcomes, reducing under-threshold yields to 48% while significantly increasing moderate and high yields to 42% and 10%, respectively. This combination offers potent synergy, markedly boosting rice productivity. The most effective scenario involves improved seeds with inorganic fertilizer (F2.2), where only 42% of yields fall below the food security threshold, and an impressive 42% reach moderate yields, with 16% exceeding the high yield threshold of 4.5 t/ha. This suggests that inorganic fertilizers, when paired with improved seeds, offer the most robust solution for maximizing rice productivity and enhancing food security across Tanzanian rice farms.

The combination of local seeds and fertilizers on rice productivity for farms located in Zanzibar and Mainland Tanzania

Fig 3 highlights significant differences in rice productivity by fertilizer use across farms in Zanzibar and Mainland Tanzania, categorized by yield thresholds indicative of food security levels. In Zanzibar, farmers using local seeds without fertilizers exhibit a high probability (86%) of falling below the minimum food security threshold of 2.0 t/ha, indicating a severe risk of food insecurity (Fig 3a). The likelihood of achieving yields within the secure range (2.0–4.5 t/ha) is only 12%. The probability of exceeding the maximum threshold of 4.5 t/ha is extremely low at only 2%. When organic fertilizers are applied, the likelihood of achieving yields below 2.0 t/ha decreases slightly to 79%, with a corresponding increase in the likelihood of achieving food-secure yields (20%). However, the probability of exceeding 4.5 t/ha remains marginal at just 1%. Similarly, farms using inorganic fertilizers showed no significant difference from those using organic fertilizers and local seeds, indicating a virtually zero chance of surpassing the maximum food security threshold.

Fig 3. Probabilities of productivity falling above the maximum food security threshold of 4.5 t/ha (in green) and less than the minimum food security threshold of 2.0 t/ha (in red), and the probability of falling between the two food security for rice farms using local seeds with different types of fertilizers for farms located in Zanzibar (ZNZFarms, Figure 3a) and those in Mainland Tanzania (MTZFarms, Figure 3b).

Fig 3

_F1.0 = farms using local seeds without fertilizers; _F1.1 farms using local seeds with organic fertilizer; and _F1.2 = farms using local seeds with inorganic fertilizers for both Zanzibar (Fig 3a.) and Mainland Tanzania (Fig 3b.).

In Mainland Tanzania, the probability of yields falling below the minimum threshold is lower than in Zanzibar, particularly for farms using fertilizers. Rice farm families that rely solely on local seeds without fertilizers face a 63% probability of food insecurity. However, they have a slightly higher chance (32%) of achieving yields within the secure range, with 5% surpassing the maximum threshold. When organic fertilizers are introduced, the probability of food-insecure yields decreases to 53%, while 35% of farms achieve yields within the secure range, and 11% exceed 4.5 t/ha.

Similarly, using inorganic fertilizers results in a 54% probability of falling below the minimum threshold, a 34% likelihood of achieving secure yields, and a 12% chance of exceeding the maximum threshold. The results under this scenario suggest that the use of fertilizers (both organic and synthetic) plays a crucial role in improving rice productivity and reducing the risk of food insecurity among smallholder farmers in Tanzania. However, even with fertilizers, the likelihood of surpassing the maximum food security threshold remains relatively low, particularly for farms located in Zanzibar when local seeds are used.

The combination of improved seeds and fertilizers on rice productivity for farms located in Zanzibar and Mainland Tanzania

Fig 4 evaluates the impact of using improved seeds with and without fertilizers on rice productivity in Zanzibar and Mainland Tanzania. In Zanzibar (Fig 4a), when using improved seeds without fertilizer (F2.0), a significant majority (79%) of yields fall below the minimum food security threshold of 2.0 tons per hectare, with only 15% reaching moderate yields between 2.0 and 4.5 tons per hectare. A mere 6% exceeding the maximum threshold of 4.5 tons per hectare. This farming practice highlights the limited effectiveness of improved seeds in enhancing productivity. Adding organic fertilizer (F2.1) improves outcomes, reducing the proportion of yields below 2.0 tons per hectare to 56%, increasing moderate yields to 34%, and slightly improving high yields to 11%. However, the introduction of inorganic fertilizer (F2.2) with improved seeds shifts the results more unfavorably, decreasing inadequate yields to 64%, with 30% achieving moderate yields and only 6% surpassing the high yield threshold, indicating a slightly lower performance compared to the use of organic fertilizers within the Island.

Fig 4. Probabilities of productivity falling above the maximum food security threshold of 4.5 t/ha (in green) and less than the minimum food security threshold of 2.0 t/ha (in red), and the probability of falling between the two food security for rice farms using improved seeds with different types of fertilizers for farms located in Zanzibar (ZNZFarms, Figure 4a) and those in Mainland Tanzania (MTZFarms, Figure 4b).

Fig 4

_F2.0 = farms using improved seeds without fertilizers; _F2.1 farms using improved seeds with organic fertilizer; and _F2.2 = farms using improved seeds with inorganic fertilizers for both farm in Zanzibar (Fig 4a) and Mainland (Fig 4b).

Meanwhile, in Mainland Tanzania (Fig 4b), improved seeds without fertilizer (FP2.0) yield results show that 62% of yields are still below the food security threshold, 31% fall within the moderate range, and 7% exceed 4.5 tons per hectare, suggesting some innate advantage of the local conditions. The results are more balanced with the incorporation of organic fertilizer (F2.1): 37% of yields remain below 2.0 tons per hectare, 56% fall within the secure range, and 7% exceed the high-yield mark, highlighting the effectiveness of organic inputs. The use of inorganic fertilizers with improved seeds (F2.2) yields the best outcomes, with only 21% falling below the threshold, 53% achieving moderate yields, and a notable 25% exceeding 4.5 tons per hectare, thereby illustrating the substantial impact of inorganic fertilizers in maximizing rice production.

Impact of improved seeds and fertilizers on the productivity of rice farms in major producing agroecological zones of Tanzania

Fig 5 displays the probabilities of rice productivity for local seed and fertilizer combinations across two major rice-producing agroecological zones in Tanzania.

Fig 5. Probabilities of productivity falling above the maximum food security threshold of 4.5 t/ha (in green) and less than the minimum food security threshold of 2.0 t/ha (in red), and the probability of falling between the two food security for rice farms using local seeds with different types of fertilizers for farms in major rice producing agroecological zones (ECZ & SHZ) in Tanzania.

Fig 5

_F1.0 = farms using local seeds without fertilizers; _F1.1 farms using local seeds with organic fertilizer; and _F1.2 = farms using local seeds with inorganic fertilizers for the selected agroecological zones.

For farms using local seeds without fertilizer, a significant proportion of yields fall below the minimum threshold in both zones (63% in ECZ and 45% in SHZ), indicating a high risk of food insecurity without fertilizer use, particularly in ECZ. Only a 1% probability exceeds the upper threshold in ECZ, whereas a 17% probability is observed for farms in SHZ. The yield probability falling between the minimum and maximum thresholds is 37% and 38% for farms in ECZ and SHZ, respectively, demonstrating the limited effectiveness of local seeds without supplemental nutrients. Farms using local seeds, combined with organic fertilizer, show a slight improvement in ECZ outcomes, with a notable improvement in farms located in SHZ. In ECZ, 56% of yields still fall below the food security threshold, with 41% achieving moderate yields and 2% exceeding the high yield threshold. Farms in SHZ exhibit a significant decrease (from 45% to 32%) in the probability of yield falling below the food insecurity threshold, accompanied by better performance in the high yield category (25% exceeding 4.5 t/ha), suggesting that organic fertilizers are more effective in this agroecological zone than in ECZ.

Similarly, farms using local seeds with inorganic fertilizer show a marked improvement, particularly in SHZ, where only 33% of yields fall below the threshold, 42% achieve moderate yields, and 25% exceed the high yield threshold. Adding inorganic fertilizers to farms located in ECZ has a relatively insignificant impact compared to organic fertilizers, as both scenarios still show a greater proportion (56%) of falling below the minimum threshold.

Fig 6 displays the probabilities of rice productivity for improved seed and fertilizer combinations across two major rice-producing agroecological zones in Tanzania. Farms using improved seeds without fertilizer perform relatively better than those using local seeds. For example, in ECZ, 62% of yields are below the threshold, but 34% achieve moderate yields, and 4% exceed the high threshold. Although the farms in SHZ have a lower likelihood of exceeding the maximum threshold than in the above scenario, the probability of falling below the minimum value is significantly lower (27%). This indicates that improved seeds alone can improve rice productivity in SHZ.

Fig 6. Probabilities productivity falling above the maximum food security threshold of 4.5 t/ha (in green) and less than minimum food security threshold of 2.0 t/ha (in red), and the probability of falling between the two food security for rice farms using improved seeds with different types of fertilizers for farms in major rice producing agroecological zones (ECZ & SHZ) in Tanzania.

Fig 6

_F2.0 = farms using improved seeds without fertilizers; _F2.1 farms using improved seeds with organic fertilizer; and _F2.2 = farms using improved seeds with inorganic fertilizers for the selected agroecological zones.

When improved seed is combined with organic fertilizers, significant improvements are observed in both agroecological zones, particularly in achieving moderate yield levels (63% in ECZ and 56% in SHZ). This combination also results in a 37% reduction in the probability of yields falling below the minimum threshold in ECZ and a 32% reduction in SHZ, with the latter having a 12% probability of yields exceeding the maximum threshold. A similar trend was observed when improved seeds were combined with inorganic fertilizers. Still, the best outcomes are observed in this scenario, particularly in SHZ, where only 16% of yields are below the threshold, 50% achieve moderate yields, and an impressive 34% exceed the high yield threshold. ECZ also shows good performance, but with fewer yields in the highest category and a slightly higher risk of falling below the minimum threshold.

Discussion

This analysis first examined the use of local seeds in combination with various types of fertilizers across rice farms in Tanzania, with a specific focus on differences between Mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar and the major rice-producing agroecological zones within the country. The findings reveal that the majority of yields from farms using local seeds without fertilizer fall below the critical food security threshold of 2.0 t/ha. This underscores the significant challenges farmers face when relying on traditional seed varieties without fertilizer support. The introduction of organic fertilizers led to a moderate improvement in yield. While organic fertilizers can boost soil fertility and crop yields, their impact alone may not be sufficient to increase productivity significantly [40]. Timsina [41] states that although organic fertilizers enhance soil health and prolong fertility, their nutrient release rates may not meet the immediate nutrient demands of high-yielding crop varieties.

In contrast, using inorganic fertilizers with local seeds yielded more pronounced improvements in crop yields. This strategy not only reduced the proportion of yields falling below the food security threshold but also did so more effectively than organic fertilizers. Smil [23] notes that inorganic fertilizers provide immediate nutrient availability, which is crucial for the rapid growth spurts required in intensive farming practices. Furthermore, Savary et al. [42] highlight that inorganic fertilizers can significantly improve nutrient uptake efficiency, thereby boosting crop yields more effectively than organic options in rice farming. While both types of fertilizers reduce the percentage of yields below the food security threshold, inorganic fertilizers appear slightly more effective at pushing yields into the moderate and high productivity brackets. Inorganic fertilizers offer quick results, but the sustainable use of organic fertilizers can improve soil health over the long term, thus supporting continued agricultural productivity [26,43].

As demonstrated in Mainland Tanzania, the use of inorganic fertilizers not only reduces the incidence of food insecurity but also increases the likelihood of surpassing food security thresholds, underscoring the role of fertilizers in subsistence farming and in facilitating economic gains through surplus production [9]. Robertson and Vitousek [44] noted that choosing between organic and inorganic fertilizers often involves balancing economic and ecological considerations, with cost-effective solutions that do not harm the environment being preferred. In terms of food security, enhancing fertilizer efficiency is linked to improved food security outcomes, as it directly influences yield levels and the stability of the food supply [13]. The differential impact observed between Zanzibar and Mainland Tanzania underscores the importance of regional adaptations in fertilizer application strategies [45,46].

The same analysis was also conducted in two leading rice-producing agroecological zones in Tanzania, specifically the Eastern & Coastal Zone (ECZ) and the Southern Highlands Zone (SHZ), which underlines how different fertilizers affect rice farm productivity in these zones. These results demonstrate a moderate improvement of local seeds with organic fertilizers, reflecting broader findings within agricultural research that emphasize the benefits of organic matter for improving soil structure and long-term fertility, which can lead to increased crop yields over time [27,28,47]. However, the boost in productivity may not be as immediate or significant as with inorganic fertilizers due to the slower nutrient release rates of organic inputs. Local seeds with inorganic fertilizer show substantial yield improvements in SHZ, highlighting the immediate effectiveness of inorganic fertilizers, which provide essential nutrients more directly accessible to plants. This aligns with findings from Mi et al. [48] and Iqbal et al. [29], who noted that inorganic fertilizers could rapidly address nutrient deficiencies and significantly enhance crop yields in the short term. The variability in ECZ and SHZ responses to fertilizer types underscores the influence of local soil characteristics and climatic conditions on fertilizer efficacy. Studies, such as those by Vanlauwe et al. [25], suggest that tailored fertilizer strategies that consider local environmental conditions are crucial for optimizing crop productivity. The significant reductions in the probability that yields fall below the food security threshold achieved with inorganic fertilizers, particularly in SHZ, are essential for effective food security strategies. These findings support the arguments of Pretty et al. [18], who advocate for sustainable, integrated nutrient management to increase food production.

The second analysis scenario highlighted the significant role that both improved seeds and fertilizers play in enhancing rice productivity within Zanzibar, Mainland Tanzania, and the major producing agroecological zones of Mainland Tanzania. The results are instrumental in understanding how advancements in agricultural inputs contribute to achieving higher yield thresholds, thereby impacting food security. Again, the differences in yield outcomes between Zanzibar and Mainland Tanzania can be attributed to varying soil types, climate conditions, and historical farming practices. Mainland Tanzania, with its more diverse agricultural environments, typically responds better to improved seeds and fertilizers than Zanzibar, which may have more challenging growing conditions.

The results demonstrated that in both Zanzibar and Mainland Tanzania, improved seeds alone show a notable improvement over local seeds. However, a substantial proportion of yields still fall below the food security threshold, highlighting the need for complementary inputs such as fertilizers, as Zanzibar continues to face more challenging growing conditions. Using organic fertilizers with improved seeds significantly reduces the incidence of yields below the food security threshold and increases the likelihood of achieving moderate to high yields. This finding supports the argument that organic fertilizers can be effectively integrated into rice production systems to enhance soil fertility and crop productivity [49]. However, the most pronounced improvements are seen when improved seeds are combined with inorganic fertilizers, particularly in Mainland Tanzania. This combination reduces the proportion of low-yielding outcomes and substantially increases the proportion of yields exceeding the high-productivity threshold, underscoring the efficacy of inorganic fertilizers in supplying the nutrients required for optimal plant growth [24].

Johnson et al. [15], in their study on Inorganic fertilizer use and its association with rice yield gaps in sub-Saharan Africa, found that while organic fertilizers improve soil health over the long term, inorganic fertilizers often offer immediate improvements in yield due to their quick nutrient release, supporting the trends observed in our findings. Tsujimoto et al. [24] discuss the genetic potential of improved rice varieties to optimize nutrient uptake, which is critical for realizing the full benefits of inorganic fertilizers, as evidenced by higher yields when these inputs are combined. Reicosky et al. [50] emphasize the importance of tailoring rice farming techniques to specific agroecological zones, noting that both the type of seed and fertilizer, as well as their interaction with the local environment, significantly influence productivity. FAO [9] reports emphasize the need to integrate both types of fertilizers to balance immediate yield needs and long-term sustainability, corroborating the varied responses observed across different treatments in the figures. On the other hand, the World Bank provides insights into agricultural policy development, suggesting that policies that support access to and use of improved seeds and organic and inorganic fertilizers can enhance food security in regions like Tanzania [10].

Results from improved seeds combined with organic and inorganic fertilizers across major rice-producing zones in Tanzania reveal that improved seeds alone yield notable benefits in reducing the percentage of yields below the food security threshold, particularly in the Southern Highlands Zone (SHZ). This aligns with research by Tsubo et al. [51], who found that improved seeds could significantly enhance crop resilience and yield, even under less-than-optimal conditions. The substantial improvement in yield probabilities with the use of organic fertilizers, especially in achieving moderate to high yields, demonstrates the value of integrating organic inputs with improved seed varieties. This is supported by Scoones [52], who argues that organic fertilizers supply essential nutrients and enhance soil health, both of which are crucial for sustainable agricultural productivity.

When inorganic fertilizers are used in conjunction with improved seeds, they yield the best results across both zones, particularly in the SHZ. This finding is consistent with studies by Snapp et al. [30], who note that inorganic fertilizers can quickly correct nutrient deficiencies, leading to rapid, significant increases in crop yields. The variations in response between the Eastern & Coastal Zone (ECZ) and SHZ highlight the influence of local environmental factors on the effectiveness of fertilizers and seeds. Tailoring fertilizer and seed strategies to specific agroecological conditions is crucial, as demonstrated by Vanlauwe et al. [25], underscoring the need for context-specific agricultural innovations.

The findings of this study reinforce the view that improved seeds and fertilizer use are effective climate adaptation strategies in Tanzania’s rain-fed rice production systems. Climate adaptation in agriculture is fundamentally concerned with reducing vulnerability to climate variability, stabilizing production under uncertainty, and strengthening household resilience. By focusing on yield distributions and threshold probabilities rather than on mean outcomes alone, this study shows that improved seeds, particularly when combined with inorganic fertilizers, significantly reduce the probability that yields fall below the minimum food-security threshold while increasing the likelihood of achieving higher yield targets. This reduction in downside risk is especially critical in the context of increasing rainfall variability and temperature stress affecting Tanzanian agriculture [2,11,31]. The observed heterogeneity between Mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar further underscores that climate adaptation is context-specific, requiring location-tailored input strategies and complementary interventions to fully realize productivity and resilience gains [16,25].

These results also align closely with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 1 (No Poverty), and SDG 13 (Climate Action). By reducing the probability of food-insecure yield outcomes, improved seed–fertilizer combinations directly support SDG 2 by enhancing household food availability and national food supply stability [9,13]. At the same time, higher probabilities of achieving moderate-to-high yields increase the potential for marketable surplus and income generation, contributing to poverty reduction under SDG 1. From a climate perspective, the ability of these input strategies to reduce yield risk and stabilize production under variable climatic conditions strengthens adaptive capacity, consistent with SDG 13 [32]. Taken together, the probabilistic evidence presented in this study underscores that improved seeds and fertilizers are not only productivity-enhancing inputs but also key components of climate-resilient and food-security-oriented agricultural development pathways in Tanzania.

Conclusions

A comprehensive analysis of rice productivity across rice farms in Zanzibar and Mainland Tanzania, using various combinations of seeds and fertilizers, has elucidated several crucial insights and strategic implications for enhancing the country's agricultural output and food security. These findings underscore the pivotal roles of both seed type (local and improved) and fertilizer choice (organic and inorganic) in determining yield outcomes and their subsequent impact on food security. The study consistently highlights the significant impact of fertilizers on improving rice yields. In particular, inorganic fertilizers can enhance yields more effectively than organic alternatives across various agroecological zones. This is likely due to their rapid nutrient release, which meets the immediate nutrient needs of growing rice plants. Improved seeds alone have demonstrated the capacity to increase productivity, even without the addition of fertilizers. However, their potential is maximized when combined with inorganic fertilizers, yielding the highest yields and surpassing critical food security thresholds.

While organic fertilizers contribute positively to long-term soil health and sustainability, they are generally less effective at immediately boosting yields compared to inorganic fertilizers. However, combining organic fertilizers with improved seeds shows promising results, particularly in Tanzania's southern highlands, suggesting that a hybrid approach might be beneficial under certain conditions. The variation in fertilizer performance between Zanzibar and Mainland Tanzania highlights the necessity for region-specific agricultural practices. Tailored strategies that consider local soil conditions, climate, and crop needs are essential for optimizing fertilizer efficacy and overall crop productivity. The findings advocate for policy interventions supporting access to improved seeds and inorganic fertilizers. Additionally, educational programs for farmers on how to effectively use these inputs could further enhance productivity. Long-term sustainability can be encouraged through integrated approaches that combine organic and inorganic fertilizers, balancing immediate yield needs with environmental sustainability.

From the analysis, the study recommends the following:

  • i

    Promoting the use of scientifically developed seeds and readily available inorganic fertilizers can significantly improve yield outcomes.

  • ii

    Continued research into crop-specific fertilizer formulations and ongoing support through extension services help tailor farming practices to regional conditions, maximizing the benefits of agricultural inputs.

  • iii

    Encourage the integration of organic fertilizers into conventional farming systems to enhance soil health and sustainability, thereby ensuring long-term agricultural productivity.

  • iv

    Develop and implement policies that subsidize the cost of critical inputs, such as improved seeds and inorganic fertilizers, making them more accessible to smallholder farmers.

This analysis confirms that strategic enhancements in seed and fertilizer use can profoundly influence rice productivity and food security in Tanzania. Tanzania can substantially improve agricultural productivity and sustainability by adopting an integrated approach that combines the immediate effectiveness of inorganic fertilizers with the resilience of improved seeds and the long-term benefits of organic fertilizers. These strategies address immediate food security concerns and contribute to the sustainable intensification of agriculture, which is essential for the household and the nation’s economic and environmental future.

Lastly, this study does not model the socioeconomic and institutional determinants of farmers’ seed and fertilizer choices (e.g., access to credit and extension services, market distance, risk preferences, gender, or education). Future work could integrate adoption models (e.g., logit/probit/multinomial choice) with the probabilistic yield-risk framework used here to jointly explain why farmers choose particular input bundles and how those bundles translate into food-security outcomes under uncertainty. Future research could also integrate NSCA crop data with specialized livestock survey datasets to explicitly analyze mixed crop–livestock systems and assess how livestock ownership interacts with seed and fertilizer use to influence yield risk and food-security outcomes.

Supporting information

S1 File. S1. Stochastic model validation; S1 Fig.

(DOCX)

pone.0353377.s001.docx (76.1KB, docx)
S2 File. Minimum dataset used for this study.

The minimum dataset used for this study is attached as: S2_File.xlsx.

(XLSX)

pone.0353377.s002.xlsx (197.3KB, xlsx)

Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to the Simetar© team (www.simetar.com), particularly Dr. James W. Richardson, former Regents Professor at Texas A&M University, for his endless, invaluable guidance on the Monte Carlo Simulation Protocols.

Data Availability

The data underlying the results presented in this study are derived from the 2019/20 National Sample Census of Agriculture (NSCA) conducted by the Tanzania National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). The datasets are not publicly deposited by the authors because access is governed by the NBS data access policy. However, the data are available from the Tanzania National Bureau of Statistics upon reasonable request and approval through the official NBS data access procedures. All summary statistics, simulation outputs, and supplementary analytical materials necessary to reproduce the findings of this study are provided within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. The NSCA data is available at: https://microdata.nbs.go.tz/index.php/catalog/31/get-microdata.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Cooper PJM, Dimes J, Rao KPC, Shapiro B, Shiferaw B, Twomlow S. Coping better with current climatic variability in the rain-fed farming systems of sub-Saharan Africa: An essential first step in adapting to future climate change?. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2008;126(1–2):24–35. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2008.01.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Rowhani P, Lobell DB, Linderman M, Ramankutty N. Climate variability and crop production in Tanzania. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. 2011;151(4):449–60. doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2010.12.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Adhikari U, Nejadhashemi AP, Woznicki SA. Climate change and eastern Africa: a review of impact on major crops. Food and Energy Security. 2015;4(2):110–32. doi: 10.1002/fes3.61 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Antle JM, Valdivia RO, Boote KJ, Janssen S, Jones JW, Porter CH, et al. AgMIP’s Transdisciplinary Agricultural Systems Approach to Regional Integrated Assessment of Climate Impacts, Vulnerability, and Adaptation. ICP Series on Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation, and Mitigation. IMPERIAL COLLEGE PRESS. 2015. p. 27–44. doi: 10.1142/9781783265640_0002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Emediegwu LE, Wossink A, Hall A. The impacts of climate change on agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa: A spatial panel data approach. World Development. 2022;158:105967. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.105967 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Onyutha C, Ayugi B, Tabari H, Ngoma H, Ongoma V. Drought across East Africa under climate variability. Climate Impacts on Extreme Weather. Elsevier. 2022. p. 159–73. doi: 10.1016/b978-0-323-88456-3.00002-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Alasow AA, Hamed MM, Rady M, Shahid S. Spatiotemporal analysis of compound droughts and heat waves in the Horn of Africa. Intl Journal of Climatology. 2024;44(13):4529–47. doi: 10.1002/joc.8595 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Binswanger-Mkhize HP. Challenges and opportunities for African agriculture and food security. FAO Expert meeting on How to feed the World in 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.FAO. The Future of Food and Agriculture—Trends and Challenges. Rome. 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.World Bank. World development report 2021: data for better lives. The World Bank. 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Nicholson SE. Climate and climatic variability of rainfall over eastern Africa. Reviews of Geophysics. 2017;55(3):590–635. doi: 10.1002/2016rg000544 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Mdemu M, Kissoly L, Kimaro E, Bjornlund H, Ramshaw P, Pittock J, et al. Climate change adaptation benefits from rejuvenated irrigation systems at Kiwere and Magozi schemes in Tanzania. International Journal of Water Resources Development. 2024;41(2):325–49. doi: 10.1080/07900627.2024.2397400 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Godfray HCJ, Beddington JR, Crute IR, Haddad L, Lawrence D, Muir JF, et al. Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science. 2010;327(5967):812–8. doi: 10.1126/science.1185383 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Mussa MA. Exploring factors affecting agricultural productivity in Tanzania. KDI School. 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Johnson J-M, Ibrahim A, Dossou-Yovo ER, Senthilkumar K, Tsujimoto Y, Asai H, et al. Inorganic fertilizer use and its association with rice yield gaps in sub-Saharan Africa. Glob Food Sec. 2023;38:100708. doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2023.100708 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Makate C, Angelsen A, Holden ST, Westengen OT. Evolution of farm-level crop diversification and response to rainfall shocks in smallholder farming: Evidence from Malawi and Tanzania. Ecological Economics. 2023;205:107736. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107736 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Minde IJ, Silim SN, Nyange DA, Ijumba CK, Kadigi I, Ires I. Tanzania Seed Sector Development Strategy: First Draft. 2024.
  • 18.Pretty J, Benton TG, Bharucha ZP, Dicks LV, Flora CB, Godfray HCJ, et al. Global assessment of agricultural system redesign for sustainable intensification. Nat Sustain. 2018;1(8):441–6. doi: 10.1038/s41893-018-0114-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Otieno G, Ogola RJO, Recha T, Mohammed JN, Fadda C. Climate Change and Seed System Interventions Impact on Food Security and Incomes in East Africa. Sustainability. 2022;14(11):6519. doi: 10.3390/su14116519 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kadigi IL, Kadigi ML, Nyange D, Sieber S. Impacts of inorganic and organic fertilizers coupled with improved seeds on maize yield in Tanzania’s agroecological zones. European Journal of Agronomy. 2025;170:127772. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2025.127772 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Kadigi IL. Modeling the profitability potential of inorganic fertilizer use for maize production in Tanzania under seasonal price volatility. Discov Sustain. 2026;7(1). doi: 10.1007/s43621-026-02665-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kadigi IL. A Monte Carlo simulation to investigate fertilizer use and productivity of maize production in Tanzania. Journal of Simulation. 2026;:1–18. doi: 10.1080/17477778.2026.2622936 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Smil V. Enriching the earth: Fritz Haber, Carl Bosch, and the transformation of world food production. MIT Press. 2004. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Tsujimoto Y, Rakotoson T, Tanaka A, Saito K. Challenges and opportunities for improving N use efficiency for rice production in sub-Saharan Africa. Plant Production Science. 2019;22(4):413–27. doi: 10.1080/1343943x.2019.1617638 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Vanlauwe B, Descheemaeker K, Giller KE, Huising J, Merckx R, Nziguheba G, et al. Integrated soil fertility management in sub-Saharan Africa: unravelling local adaptation. SOIL. 2015;1(1):491–508. doi: 10.5194/soil-1-491-2015 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Tilman D, Cassman KG, Matson PA, Naylor R, Polasky S. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature. 2002;418(6898):671–7. doi: 10.1038/nature01014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Rekhi RS, Benbi DK, Singh B. Effect of fertilizers and organic manures on crop yields and soil properties in rice-wheat cropping system. In: Long-term soil fertility experiments in rice-wheat cropping systems, 2000. 1–6.
  • 28.Thomas CL, Acquah GE, Whitmore AP, McGrath SP, Haefele SM. The Effect of Different Organic Fertilizers on Yield and Soil and Crop Nutrient Concentrations. Agronomy. 2019;9(12):776. doi: 10.3390/agronomy9120776 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Iqbal A, He L, Khan A, Wei S, Akhtar K, Ali I, et al. Organic Manure Coupled with Inorganic Fertilizer: An Approach for the Sustainable Production of Rice by Improving Soil Properties and Nitrogen Use Efficiency. Agronomy. 2019;9(10):651. doi: 10.3390/agronomy9100651 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Snapp SS, Blackie MJ, Gilbert RA, Bezner-Kerr R, Kanyama-Phiri GY. Biodiversity can support a greener revolution in Africa. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107(48):20840–5. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1007199107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Thornton PK, Kristjanson P, Förch W, Barahona C, Cramer L, Pradhan S. Is agricultural adaptation to global change in lower-income countries on track to meet the future food production challenge?. Global Environmental Change. 2018;52:37–48. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.06.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Thornton P, Herrero M, Nelson G, Mayberry D. Resilient livelihoods in Africa’s pastoral-agropastoral transition zones will increasingly depend on heat stress adaptation and systemic change. Nat Food. 2024;5(12):976–81. doi: 10.1038/s43016-024-01079-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Richardson JW, Herbst BK, Outlaw JL, Gill RC. Including risk in economic feasibility analyses: the case of ethanol production in Texas. Journal of Agribusiness. 2007;25(2):115–32. doi: 10.22004/ag.econ.62291 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Rao KPC, Sridhar G, Mulwa RM, Kilavi MN, Esilaba A, Athanasiadis IN, et al. Impacts of Climate Variability and Change on Agricultural Systems in East Africa. ICP Series on Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation, and Mitigation. IMPERIAL COLLEGE PRESS. 2015. p. 75–124. doi: 10.1142/9781783265640_0015 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Kadigi IL, Mutabazi KD, Philip D, Richardson JW, Bizimana J-C, Mbungu W, et al. An Economic Comparison between Alternative Rice Farming Systems in Tanzania Using a Monte Carlo Simulation Approach. Sustainability. 2020;12(16):6528. doi: 10.3390/su12166528 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.United Republic of Tanzania URT. National sample census of agriculture 2019/20. 2021. https://www.nbs.go.tz/uploads/statistics/documents/sw-1705482872-2019-20_Agri_Census_%20Main_Report.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Rezende ML, Richardson JW. Economic feasibility of sugar and ethanol production in Brazil under alternative future prices outlook. Agricultural Systems. 2015;138:77–87. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2015.05.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Richardson JW, Klose SL, Gray AW. An Applied Procedure for Estimating and Simulating Multivariate Empirical (MVE) Probability Distributions In Farm-Level Risk Assessment and Policy Analysis. J Agric Appl Econ. 2000;32(2):299–315. doi: 10.1017/s107407080002037x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Richardson JW, Schumann K, Feldman P. Simetar simulation for Excel to analyze risk user’s guide. College Station: Agricultural and Food Policy Center, Texas A&M University. 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Akinseye FM, Birhanu BZ, Ajeigbe HA, Diancoumba M, Sanogo K, Tabo R. Impacts of fertilization management strategies on improved sorghums varieties in smallholder farming systems in Mali: Productivity and profitability differences. Heliyon. 2023;9(3):e14497. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14497 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Timsina J. Can Organic Sources of Nutrients Increase Crop Yields to Meet Global Food Demand?. Agronomy. 2018;8(10):214. doi: 10.3390/agronomy8100214 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Savary S, Willocquet L, Pethybridge SJ, Esker P, McRoberts N, Nelson A. The global burden of pathogens and pests on major food crops. Nat Ecol Evol. 2019;3(3):430–9. doi: 10.1038/s41559-018-0793-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Savci S. An Agricultural Pollutant: Chemical Fertilizer. IJESD. 2012;:73–80. doi: 10.7763/ijesd.2012.v3.191 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Robertson GP, Vitousek PM. Nitrogen in Agriculture: Balancing the Cost of an Essential Resource. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 2009;34(1):97–125. doi: 10.1146/annurev.environ.032108.105046 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Vanlauwe B, Kihara J, Chivenge P, Pypers P, Coe R, Six J. Agronomic use efficiency of N fertilizer in maize-based systems in sub-Saharan Africa within the context of integrated soil fertility management. Plant Soil. 2010;339(1–2):35–50. doi: 10.1007/s11104-010-0462-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Pretty JN, Williams S, Toulmin C. Sustainable intensification: increasing productivity in African food and agricultural systems. Routledge; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Maltas A, Charles R, Jeangros B, Sinaj S. Effect of organic fertilizers and reduced-tillage on soil properties, crop nitrogen response and crop yield: Results of a 12-year experiment in Changins, Switzerland. Soil and Tillage Research. 2013;126:11–8. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2012.07.012 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Mi W, Sun Y, Xia S, Zhao H, Mi W, Brookes PC, et al. Effect of inorganic fertilizers with organic amendments on soil chemical properties and rice yield in a low-productivity paddy soil. Geoderma. 2018;320:23–9. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.01.016 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Liu C, Lu M, Cui J, Li B, Fang C. Effects of straw carbon input on carbon dynamics in agricultural soils: a meta-analysis. Glob Chang Biol. 2014;20(5):1366–81. doi: 10.1111/gcb.12517 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Reicosky D. Managing soil health for sustainable agriculture volume 1: fundamentals. Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing. 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Tsubo M, Walker S, Ogindo HO. A simulation model of cereal–legume intercropping systems for semi-arid regions. Field Crops Research. 2005;93(1):23–33. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2004.09.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Scoones I. Transforming soils: the dynamics of soil-fertility management in Africa. Dynamics and diversity. Routledge. 2010. p. 1–44. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Nickson Erick Otieno

24 Nov 2025

-->PONE-D-25-39698-->-->Modeling the Role of Fertilizers and Improved Seeds on Rice Productivity in Tanzania using a Stochastic Simulation Approach-->-->PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kadigi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================-->-->

The two reviewers both agree about the importance of the study, and its potential contribution to knowledge about the potential significance of improved rice production for local and national food security in a changing climate

However, they (and especially reviewer #1) feel that there are a number of technical inadequacies that undermine the quality of the paper, making it unsuitable for publication in its current state.

The study appears to have been pegged or relied almost entirely on analyses of rice production choice pathways (seed and fertilizer type) datasets using stochastic simulation (SS), reportedly anchored on the works of one Richardson. Although the analysis procedure is fairly well outlined, it was not very clear why the authors centered primarily on this one analytical technique and ignored all other standard strategies for assessing sociological data, which would have served to greatly complement the SS element and thus provide a more complete picture of the relative merits of fertilizer and seed choice by farmers.

The Introduction does not clearly articulate through literature review, what gap the research fills in knowledge on the subject, or how it advances existing knowledge based on past studies. This should entail reviewing literature up to date. The literature review should also include some introductory material on the technique adopted by the authors in their study – stochastic simulation. For instance, what are the relative merits of probabilistic/stochastic modeling for this study in comparison to other alternative analytical approaches? Furthermore, the introduction contains no literature review at all, on the relative merits of the choice or types of fertilizer and seeds, and how this relates to rural and national rice production goals/scenarios. There are tons of existing literature on that.

For such an elaborate attempt at statistical modeling, there must be at least 2 hypotheses to be tested. Not only were there no hypotheses stated or tested, there was no clear list of objectives underpinn9ng the investigation. The introduction must end with a clear list of objectives, and these should form the basis for the set of testable hypotheses for which the stochastic simulation will be run. Further down into Discussion, include in some greater detail how you findings align with the climate adaptation concept (which you mention) within the context of United Nations sustainable development goals relevant to the subject matter

In methods, this study primarily involved interviews with farmers, but this element is not mentioned anywhere in the paper. Instead, all focus seems to have been given to the aspect of simulation. Stochastic simulation may have been suitable for your purpose in integrating many elements of farm management, but why were other standard procedures for assessing sociological datasets (there are numerous ones) not included to complement or supplement simulation models?

There is no mention of how many households were sampled with the various regional Primary sampling units (PSU). Clear indication of this sample size and how it was incorporated in the models (what term in your stochastic simulation formula represents it?).

The terms you use such as ‘proportionately distributed’ and ‘systematically selected’ what do they mean in reference to sampling design and representativeness?

As a matter of fact, were all rice growers who also reared livestock included in the dataset, or some sort of sampling criteria used to pick a small sample in each place. Tis information and the ultimate sample size per PSu need to be provided

Also needed is information as to how up-to-date the census information was (for instance, a decades-old census dataset might be less useful currently). Include also the censusing authority, whether government or other agency, with citation of the census relevant actual census report

In many cases within Methods and analyses or results, the authors merely refer readers to various references especially Richardson. Methods must be described real-time for readers to be able to relate the study protocol to the study title, objectives, analyses and results reported, as well as are able to reproduce the procedure. They must not be asked to fish out the methods descriptions for themselves from another publication. In particular, each of the terms of the formula presented must be fully defined and described as well as justified for its value for the study’s objectives.

For instance, a term multivariate empirical distribution is abruptly mentioned as n approach for integrating various variables in simulation modeling. But no details are given, the readers being asked to find out from Richardson, 2000.  NO other mention is made of the term, and there is no indication as to how or where exactly it was indeed applied.

How datasets were pre-treated before simulation should be clearly described, especially as there were not only two variables (rice seed type and fertilizer type) but also spatial units (regions/agroecological zones); the element of crop vs. livestock production, including how these were standardized or re-scaled from the various components of measurement units. It is unlikely that any simulation model function would simply accommodate any number of data elements regardless of scale or unit.

Information presented in section 2.3 should best be presented in form of a table

At the end of the Discussion or at Conclusion, there must subsequently then be a statement outlining the extent to which the hypotheses were proved or disproved by the stochastic simulation exercise. At present, the Conclusion is too long and incudes some information that should better presented earlier on in Discussion

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 08 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Nickson Erick Otieno, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please note that PLOS One has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

[This research was conducted as part of the USAID SERA BORA Project, contributing to the development of the Tanzania Seed Sector Development Strategy (TSSDS), which aims to enhance agricultural productivity and improve food security in Tanzania by 2030. We are grateful to ASPIRES Tanzania, supported by the USAID SERA BORA Project, for providing partial funding for this work. Thanks to Prof. David Nyange (ASPIRES) for the support that has benefited this work. Special thanks are due to the Simetar© team (www.simetar.com), particularly Dr. James W. Richardson, former Regents Professor at Texas A&M University, for his endless, invaluable guidance on the Monte Carlo Simulation Protocols.]

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

[The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.]

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contains map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Additional Editor Comments:

For references, the guidelines for formatting were totally ignored by the authors. Several citations are missing from the list and vice versa. Richardson and kadigi are two cases in point.

Most (if not all) guidelines for manuscript formatting have been completely ignored by the authors. In assessing the revised version of the resubmitted paper, STRICT ADHERENCE TO ALL FORMATTING rules  (according to guideline documents attached here) will be the first condition for the manuscript to be considered before any further review at all, without which it will be rejected outright

Be sure to address all the above, as well as the other individual comments by reviewers, point by point in a separate document accompanying the revised paper.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: Introduction

Why the paper deserves to publish - or contribution to the knowledge not articulated properly. "This study addresses the gap by analyzing....." not good enough without giving evidence from literature - what is the gap - then contribution to knowledge from different aspect - theory, method, practical and so on- MISSING

SDGS 2- the study deal also adaption and climate - then need to include SDG6 and 13 with the alignment of Tanzanian national policy and strategies

Methodology

Figure 1 need to daw by authors with assistance of GIS expert using ARC GIS with proper scale and others - instead of coping and paste someone work

Before Probabilistic Simulation Approach (PSA)- the statical analysis's need such as multicollinearity, VIP and other standard procedures needed

consistency between et al (italics ) or not - page 6-7

You mentioned 2 strategies only applied in this study - but you applied Multivariate Empirical (MVE) distribution???????????????????????????????????????????????????? because muti variant is Mutiple variables

Result

the socioeconomic characteristics is very important for the adoption strategy - even if not tested - need to include - in the result with the alignment of the objective

It is not clear how .. impact on food security - how measure food security - not clear from the paper

All tables and figures need sources

How measure rice productivity -not clear

Reviewer #2: Introduction - Okay

Methodology- Is it correct- The six agroecological zone

- You may exclude No fertilizer and local seed as control

Result- Okay

Discussion - Okay

Recommendation-Okay

References - Okay

**********

-->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?  For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes: Prof Yonas T. Bahta

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr. Mohammad Abdullah Al Faroque

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS Title paage and Affiliations Formatting Guidelines.pdf

pone.0353377.s003.pdf (87KB, pdf)
Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf

pone.0353377.s004.pdf (526.3KB, pdf)
PLoS One. 2026 Aug 26;21(8):e0353377. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0353377.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


16 Jun 2026

The two reviewers both agree about the importance of the study, and its potential contribution to knowledge about the potential significance of improved rice production for local and national food security in a changing climate

However, they (and especially reviewer #1) feel that there are a number of technical inadequacies that undermine the quality of the paper, making it unsuitable for publication in its current state.

Comment #1

The study appears to have been pegged or relied almost entirely on analyses of rice production choice pathways (seed and fertilizer type) datasets using stochastic simulation (SS), reportedly anchored on the works of one Richardson. Although the analysis procedure is fairly well outlined, it was not very clear why the authors centered primarily on this one analytical technique and ignored all other standard strategies for assessing sociological data, which would have served to greatly complement the SS element and thus provide a more complete picture of the relative merits of fertilizer and seed choice by farmers.

Response: We thank the Reviewer #1 for this important observation. However, our primary objective in this manuscript is not to estimate the behavioral or sociological determinants of adoption (e.g., why farmers choose improved seeds or fertilizer), but rather to quantify the productivity and food-security implications (including risk and uncertainty) associated with alternative seed–fertilizer “choice pathways” observed in the National Sample Census of Agriculture (NSCA) dataset. In this context, Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) was selected because it is particularly well-suited to (i) representing nonlinear yield risk, (ii) reproducing full yield distributions (not only mean effects), and (iii) estimating probabilities of crossing policy-relevant thresholds (e.g., 2.0 t/ha minimum and 4.5 t/ha maximum food-security yield targets).

We agree that traditional regression-type approaches (e.g., OLS/GLM) are valuable when the main aim is to estimate conditional mean effects and/or causal associations, often under parametric assumptions (normality, linearity, constant variance). However, rice yields in smallholder settings are frequently skewed, heavy-tailed, and heterogeneous across agroecological zones and management categories, and policy questions in Tanzania are commonly framed in terms of downside risk (the probability of falling below a food-security threshold) and upside opportunity (the probability of achieving high yields). MCS directly targets these probability statements by simulating from empirically grounded distributions, thereby providing an interpretable risk profile for each observed farming practice.

In addition, our dataset contains markedly unequal and sometimes small sub-samples for specific combinations of improved seed and fertilizer use (e.g., improved seed + organic fertilizer). Under such conditions, purely parametric modeling can be unstable and may require strong distributional assumptions. The probabilistic simulation approach we used (with empirical deviations/residuals and correlated sampling) is designed to preserve the observed distributional features and to generate sufficiently large simulated samples (of at least 500) for robust probability ranking, while we also validate simulated outputs against observed distributions.

That said, we fully agree with the Reviewer that complementary “traditional” analyses can enrich interpretation. To address this concern, we have strengthened the manuscript in two ways:

Clarified the study aim and method choice: We now explicitly state that the paper’s contribution is a risk-and-threshold evaluation of productivity and food security outcomes under alternative seed–fertilizer practices, rather than a behavioral adoption model [see lines 80 – 87].

Positioned complementary sociological/econometric approaches as an extension: We added a paragraph at the Conclusion section noting that adoption determinants (e.g., education, access to credit, extension services, market distance, gender, risk preferences) can be examined in a separate complementary framework (e.g., logit/probit/multinomial choice or structural models), and we identify this as an important direction for future work. This clarifies that we did not “ignore” these approaches, but rather prioritized a method aligned with our research question [see Lines 762 – 770].

What edits have we made in the manuscript?

In the Introduction: We have added a short clarification that the focus is on probabilistic productivity/food-security outcomes under observed pathways, not adoption determinants [see Lines: 80 – 87 of the revised manuscript]

In the Methodology section (particularly Section 2.3): We have added a justification paragraph explaining why MCS is appropriate versus mean-based parametric methods for threshold/risk questions and heterogeneous yield distributions [see Lines: 243 – 249].

In the Conclusion section, we have added a paragraph explaining the limitations / future research. In particular, we have stated that sociological determinants of adoption are outside the current scope and should be addressed in future complementary analysis [see Lines: 762– 770 of the revised manuscript].

***************************************************************************

***************************************************************************

Comment #2

The Introduction does not clearly articulate through literature review, what gap the research fills in knowledge on the subject, or how it advances existing knowledge based on past studies. This should entail reviewing literature up to date. The literature review should also include some introductory material on the technique adopted by the authors in their study – stochastic simulation. For instance, what are the relative merits of probabilistic/stochastic modeling for this study in comparison to other alternative analytical approaches? Furthermore, the introduction contains no literature review at all, on the relative merits of the choice or types of fertilizer and seeds, and how this relates to rural and national rice production goals/scenarios. There are tons of existing literature on that.

Response: We sincerely thank the Reviewer for this constructive and insightful comment. We agree that the original Introduction did not sufficiently (i) articulate the precise knowledge gap, (ii) position the study relative to existing empirical and modeling literature, (iii) introduce and justify the use of stochastic simulation as an analytical framework, and (iv) adequately synthesize the extensive literature on fertilizer and seed choice in relation to rice productivity and national food-security objectives.

To address this concern, we have substantially revised and restructured the Introduction to achieve four explicit objectives:

Clarify the knowledge gap

We now clearly distinguish between (a) studies that examine mean yield effects or adoption determinants of improved seeds and fertilizers, and (b) the limited number of studies that evaluate yield risk, uncertainty, and food-security threshold outcomes under alternative seed–fertilizer pathways using nationally representative data. We explicitly position our contribution as addressing this latter gap for Tanzania [see Lines 60 – 68].

Strengthen the literature review and update references

The revised Introduction now integrates additional and more relevant literature on climate change, rice productivity, seed systems, fertilizer use, and food security in sub-Saharan Africa and Tanzania, including recent contributions from Global Food Security, Nature Food, Agronomy, Ecological Economics, and FAO/World Bank policy reports. These additions complement the existing references already cited in the manuscript. These citations include, [Antle et al., 2015; Cooper et al., 2008; Godfray et al., 2010; Johnson et al., 2023; Makate et al., 2023; Mdemu et al., 2025; Nicholson, 2017; Pretty et al., 2018; Rao et al., 2015; Thornton et al., 2018; Thornton et al., 2024; Kadigi et al., 2025; Kadigi 2026].

Introduce and justify stochastic/probabilistic simulation

We added a dedicated paragraph that introduces stochastic (Monte Carlo) simulation as a well-established analytical approach for agricultural risk analysis, explicitly contrasting it with traditional mean-based econometric approaches. The revised text explains why probabilistic modeling is particularly suitable for smallholder rice systems characterized by yield variability, climatic uncertainty, and policy-relevant food-security thresholds [See Lines: 80 – 87 and Lines 69 – 81 in the introduction section, but also in the methodology section from Lines: 243 to 249].

Link seed and fertilizer choice to national and rural production goals

The revised Introduction explicitly connects fertilizer and seed choices to Tanzania’s rice development strategies, food-security objectives, and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), showing how different input combinations relate to national productivity targets and household-level food-security outcomes [82 – 106].

These revisions substantially improve the clarity, completeness, and positioning of the manuscript and directly address the Reviewer’s concerns.

***************************************************************************

***************************************************************************

Comment #3

For such an elaborate attempt at statistical modeling, there must be at least 2 hypotheses to be tested. Not only were there no hypotheses stated or tested, there was no clear list of objectives underpinn9ng the investigation. The introduction must end with a clear list of objectives, and these should form the basis for the set of testable hypotheses for which the stochastic simulation will be run. Further down into the Discussion, include in some greater detail how you findings align with the climate adaptation concept (which you mention) within the context of United Nations sustainable development goals relevant to the subject matter

Response: We thank the Reviewer for this valuable recommendation. We agree that the manuscript will be strengthened by (i) stating clear study objectives at the end of the Introduction and (ii) formulating explicit, testable hypotheses aligned with those objectives. We also appreciate the suggestion to better situate our findings within climate adaptation framing and the UN SDGs.

At the same time, we respectfully clarify that the core contribution of our approach is probabilistic risk/threshold inference (which was the main factor in selecting this method) rather than causal hypothesis testing in the classical econometric sense. The purpose of the stochastic simulation is to reproduce yield distributions for observed farming pathways and to estimate the probability that each pathway crosses policy-relevant food-security thresholds under uncertainty. Nevertheless, we agree that the differences between simulated distributions can be framed as testable hypotheses, but since the aim of this study was to probabilistically assess the likelihood that the productivity of rice farms exceeds the required maximum thresholds or falls below the minimum values (thresholds).

Accordingly, we have revised the manuscript to:

Conclude the Introduction with explicit objectives [see Lines 97 – 108], and we have explicitly elaborated that hypothesis testing is very important, but for the nature of our study, it can be of less importance.

Expand the Discussion to explicitly interpret the results as climate adaptation evidence and link them to SDG targets [Lines: 702 – 714].

***************************************************************************

***************************************************************************

Comment #4

In methods, this study primarily involved interviews with farmers, but this element is not mentioned anywhere in the paper. Instead, all focus seems to have been given to the aspect of simulation. Stochastic simulation may have been suitable for your purpose in integrating many elements of farm management, but why were other standard procedures for assessing sociological datasets (there are numerous ones) not included to complement or supplement simulation models?

Response: We thank the Reviewer for this important clarification request and fully agree that the role of socioeconomic and sociological data should be clearly distinguished from the analytical focus of the present study.

First, we would like to clarify that this study did not involve primary interviews conducted by the authors. Instead, it relied exclusively on secondary data from the 2019/20 National Sample Census of Agriculture (NSCA), which was implemented by the Tanzania National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). The NSCA data are collected through structured household questionnaires administered by trained enumerators and include information on crop production, seed types, fertilizer use, farm size, and other household characteristics. In the revised manuscript, we have clarified this point in the Data Sources (Section 2.2) to avoid any misunderstanding that the authors conducted independent interviews [Lines: 149 – 172].

Second, regarding the absence of explicit sociological or socioeconomic modeling, we respectfully emphasize that the primary aim of this paper is not to explain farmers’ adoption behavior or socioeconomic decision-making processes, but rather to evaluate how observed seed and fertilizer practices (key policy-relevant interventions) probabilistically influence rice yield outcomes and food-security risks under uncertainty. As such, the analytical focus is deliberately placed on seed type and fertilizer application pathways as agronomic and policy levers, rather than on the socioeconomic determinants that lead farmers to choose these inputs. This scope was chosen to address a specific gap in the literature, where most studies (including Duflo et al., 2008; Kihara et al., 2026; Burke & Lobell, 2017; Stathers et al., 2020; Sheahan & Barrett, 2017; Abdoulaye et al., 2018; Mugwe et al., 2020; Khonje et al., 2015; Nin-Pratt, 2016; Vanlauwe et al., 2010), focus on adoption determinants, experimental or plot-level data, mean yield or average returns or average yield effects, while fewer quantify yield risk and food-security probabilities associated with alternative input bundles at the national scale [Lines: 60 – 67 in the Introduction section and Lines: 762 – 770 in the Conclusion section].

Third, stochastic simulation was selected because it is particularly well suited for integrating variability in farm management outcomes and for answering policy-relevant questions framed in probabilistic terms (e.g., the likelihood of exceeding or falling below food-security thresholds). While standard sociological and econometric approaches (e.g., logit/probit models, structural equation models, or mixed-methods analyses) are essential for understanding why farmers adopt certain technologies, they are less directly aligned with the study’s core research question, which concerns how different seed–fertilizer combinations translate into yield risk and food-security outcomes. Including such models in the present paper would have expanded the scope beyond its intended focus and potentially obscured the risk-based contribution of the simulation framework [Lines: 69 – 80 and Lines: 244 – 250].

That said, we fully agree with Reviewer 1’s concern that integrated studies combining socioeconomic adoption models with stochastic yield simulations are both valuable and necessary. Accordingly, we have explicitly acknowledged this in the revised manuscript by adding a paragraph in the Conclusion section as Limitations and Future Research, noting that future work could link socioeconomic determinants (e.g., education, access to credit and extension services, gender, and market access) with probabilistic simulation models to jointly analyze adoption behavior and yield-risk outcomes. This clarification underscores that socioeconomic factors are important but intentionally held outside the scope of the current analysis to maintain analytical coherence [Lines: 762 – 770].

In summary, we have made the following revisions to the manuscript:

We have clarified in Section 2.2 (Data Sources) that th

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to editors issues.docx

pone.0353377.s006.docx (17.6KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Nickson Erick Otieno

23 Jun 2026

Modeling the role of fertilizers and improved seeds on rice productivity in Tanzania using a stochastic simulation approach

PONE-D-25-39698R1

Dear Prof Kadigi,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Nickson Erick Otieno, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

I must commend the authors most sincerely for the exceptionally excellent effort in revising the manuscript, which effort entailed meticulous point-by-point consideration and exhaustive response to all (without any exception) comments, issues and concerns raised by all the reviewers and Editor. All the responses are fully reflected in the revised and substantially improved manuscript, and all the rebuttals for points the authors felt did not warrant any changes, are very well justified and articulated.

In particular, the authors have sufficiently clarified, regarding my earlier concerns about the absence of parametrically-driven analysis and model structuring, that the study focused instead on a probabilistic approach to predicting/assessing (seed vs. fertilizer) decision pathways by farmers, and the implications of those choices for climate change and UN sustainable development goals (SDGs). They have ably and justifiably  argued that because of this analytical approach, and because, based on the nature of the datasets used in terms of skewness and variegated sample sizes and  attendant challenges in standardizing them for conventional hypothesis-driven parametric modeling, it was better to opt for stochastic simulation as a more elegant,  time-tested and defensible alternative. I am fully satisfied and convinced with this argument and its practical and technical merit.

The overall result is a highly revamped, much better structured and lucidly presented paper that should be much easier for readers to comprehend and reproduce if needed.

Based on all these facts therefore, I am satisfied that the article is acceptable for publication if the authors are willing to make the following few additional modifications

Introduction

Line 61: Please replace the word “using’ with the phrase “based on”

Line 67-68: Please consider replacing “…avoiding crop failure or achieving yields sufficient to ensure household food security and marketable surplus ” with “…yield gaps or harvest shortfalls that can potentially jeopardize food security or depress projected profit margins ”

Line 91: Your single research question should not be in italics but numbered e.g. (1). Alternatively, make it bold

Discussion

Make an even stronger highlight/emphasis in the Discussion, the implications of the findings for climate change trends in Tanzania (East Africa), and also for the UN SDGs, both of which are significant aspects of your introduction

Double-space all data in all Tables presented

Remove all figures from the manuscript body and submit them as separate TIFF, JPEG or SPS files with resolution no less than 350 dpi.  Leave only the figure captions in the relevant places in the manuscript. This should apply also to the Supporting-Information figure.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Nickson Erick Otieno

PONE-D-25-39698R1

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Kadigi,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Nickson Erick Otieno

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. S1. Stochastic model validation; S1 Fig.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0353377.s001.docx (76.1KB, docx)
    S2 File. Minimum dataset used for this study.

    The minimum dataset used for this study is attached as: S2_File.xlsx.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0353377.s002.xlsx (197.3KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PLOS Title paage and Affiliations Formatting Guidelines.pdf

    pone.0353377.s003.pdf (87KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf

    pone.0353377.s004.pdf (526.3KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to editors issues.docx

    pone.0353377.s006.docx (17.6KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    The data underlying the results presented in this study are derived from the 2019/20 National Sample Census of Agriculture (NSCA) conducted by the Tanzania National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). The datasets are not publicly deposited by the authors because access is governed by the NBS data access policy. However, the data are available from the Tanzania National Bureau of Statistics upon reasonable request and approval through the official NBS data access procedures. All summary statistics, simulation outputs, and supplementary analytical materials necessary to reproduce the findings of this study are provided within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. The NSCA data is available at: https://microdata.nbs.go.tz/index.php/catalog/31/get-microdata.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES