Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Elsevier Sponsored Documents logoLink to Elsevier Sponsored Documents
. 2018 Jul 1;261:144–152. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2018.01.035

Additive yield response of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) to rhizobium inoculation and phosphorus fertilizer across smallholder farms in Ethiopia

Endalkachew Wolde-meskel a,⁎, Joost van Heerwaarden b, Birhan Abdulkadir a, Sofia Kassa c, Ibsa Aliyi d, Tulu Degefu e, Kissi Wakweya f, Fred Kanampiu g, Ken E Giller b
PMCID: PMC5946702  PMID: 29970943

Highlights

  • •

    On MPN assessment, native rhizobium population size on the study site was less than 10 cfu g−1 of soil.

  • •

    On a wide range of on-farm trials, inoculation (I) increased chickpea grain yields for 99% of target farmers.

  • •

    I and P fertilizer in combination, resulted on average, in a 38% yield increase over the control plots.

  • •

    Variation in response to rhizobium inoculation was mostly independent of agro-ecology and soil type.

  • •

    Rhizobial inoculation offers a cheap and highly effective means for the sustainable intensification of smallholder agriculture.

Keywords: Nitrogen fixation, Grain legume, Mesorhizobium, Yield gaps, Yield variability

Abstract

The impacts of rhizobium inoculation on growth and yield of chickpea have mainly been tested in experiments conducted in greenhouses or on research stations. We report the response of the crop to inoculation (I) and phosphorus fertilizer (P) application across a large number of smallholder’s farms over four regions of Ethiopia, covering diverse soil fertility and agro-ecological conditions. Increased grain yields due to the soil fertility treatments was evident for 99% target farmers. On average, I and P increased grain yield by 21% and 25% respectively, while the combined application of I and P resulted in a 38% increase. However, observed grain yields on control plots and responses to the treatments on individual farms varied greatly, and relative yield responses (%; yield of P and/I minus control yield, divided by control yield) ranged from 3% to 138%. With the exception of a few extremely poorly yielding locations, average responses to P and I were high across a wide range of control yields, indicating the possibility of boosting chickpea productivity for smallholders with P fertilizer and inoculant technology. Variation in response to rhizobium inoculation was mostly independent of agro-ecology and soil type although it was found to be low on a number of farms with extremely high N contents (%). Assuming that a relative yield increase of 10% due to treatment effects is required to be visible, 71%, 73% and 92% of the farmers observed a yield benefit by applying P, I, and P + I, respectively. The results are discussed with respect to the additive benefits of P fertilizers and rhizobial inoculation and their implications for wide scale promotion of inoculant technology to smallholders.

1. Introduction

Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is globally the third most important food legume after common bean and soybean (Namvar and Sharifi, 2011). It is widely cultivated by smallholders in Mediterranean and semi-arid climates but in Africa is largely restricted to the cool highlands of Ethiopia (Anbessa and Bejiga, 2002). However, it also grows in Sudan under irrigation and rain-fed systems and is an increasingly important crop in Tanzania. In 2014, Ethiopia produced almost 60% of Africa’s total chickpea (FAOSTAT, 2014; Ojiewo, 2016). The total area of chickpea in Ethiopia has increased from 168,000–230,000 ha over the past decade (CSA, 2014), with desi varieties grown mainly for the local market and the larger seeded, Kabuli varieties largely for export. Yet productivity of chickpea remains low, with national average yield of 1.7 t ha−1 (BTL, 2013; FAOSTAT, 2014; CSA, 2016, CSA, 2017), far below the potential yield of 4–5 t ha−1 reported on experimental stations (Bejiga and van der Maesen, 2006; Fikre, 2016).

Chickpea occupies an important position amongst the pulse crops grown in Ethiopia because of its multiple functions. It is a key component of the daily diet, and thus an important protein source for Ethiopian households who cannot afford animal products. Chickpea residue, locally known as “Defeka”, is important as a feed resource for livestock during the dry months of the year when green fodder is unavailable. This helps farmers to keep robust oxen whose draught power is critical for land preparation at the onset of the rains. Chickpea plays an important role in Ethiopia’s foreign exchange earnings through export to Asia and Europe (Shiferaw and Teklewold, 2007). Another attractive feature of chickpea is its ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen in symbiosis with rhizobia, contributing directly to grain protein and reducing the need for N fertilizer for subsequent crops. It thereby has great potential to improve soil N status (Tena et al., 2016; Ben Romdhane et al., 2008; Funga et al., 2016; Khaitov et al., 2016) and is an ideal candidate for intensification of the tef monoculture that is common in Ethiopia. Chickpea is produced mainly in the central, northern and north western highland areas at elevations of 1400–2400 m above sea level where annual rainfall ranges from 700 and 2000 mm. It is often grown after the cereals wheat (Triticum spp.) and tef (Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter) are harvested on vertisols using residual moisture which extends the cropping season through September–December. As a result, growing chickpea allows the farmers to produce extra crop on the same land.

Legume yields and nitrogen fixation depends on the genotype of the legume (GL), the rhizobium strain (GR) and the interactions of these with the bio-physical environment (E), and management practices (M) expressed as the interaction: (GL × GR) × E × M (Giller et al., 2013). Research efforts have focused on breeding (MoARD, 2009; Jarso et al., 2011; BTL, 2013). The use of agrochemical inputs with legumes remains limited in Africa (Chianu et al., 2011), and chickpea is grown without fertilizer often on marginal lands in Ethiopia, with a common notion among farmers that legume crops do not need nutrient inputs. Yet poor legume yields are often a reflection of poor soil fertility (Franke et al., 2016).

Chickpea can fix 60–80% of its nitrogen requirement (SPG, 2016; Giller, 2001), amounting to 60–176 kg N ha−1 (Beck et al., 1991; Shiferaw et al., 2004). It is selective in its symbiotic requirement, nodulating with only a specific group of rhizobium species (Tena et al., 2016; SPG, 2016). The absence of compatible strains and the small rhizobial population in the soil are important limitations for nodule formation in chickpea (Kantar et al., 2010). Inoculation with effective strains at planting time is recommended if the soil population density of compatible rhizobia is less than 50 cells per gram of soil (Thies et al., 1991a, Thies et al., 1991b). There is increasing evidence to suggest that inoculation enhances plant growth, grain and biomass yield in chickpea (Ben Romdhane et al., 2008; Funga et al., 2016; Khaitov et al., 2016; Tena et al., 2016). In Ethiopia, experiments to date examining the effect of rhizobium inoculation on chickpea growth and yields have been largely restricted to greenhouses and research stations. Here, we report the responses of chickpea to inoculation (I) and phosphorus fertilizer (P) application from widespread testing on smallholder farmers’ fields. Our central aim was to understand the effect of the treatments (I, P and/or I + P) on grain yields of the crop across a large number of smallholders’ plots representing diverse soil fertility and agro-ecological conditions. To this end we conducted simple trials on more than 100 farmers’ fields in four Woredas (districts) in central, south and south-east Ethiopia. In addition, the variation in response to the soil fertility treatments across individual farms were explored to identify whether we could identify variables that explain the occurrence and magnitude of response. Such knowledge is important to assist both in targeting of the technologies and to identify the need for further research on rehabilitation measures.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. The test environment

On-farm demonstration trials were conducted over four cropping seasons from 2012 to 2015, in four different Woredas (districts), namely Ada’a/Gimbichu (Central), Damote-Gale (South), and Ginir (South-east Ethiopia) (Fig. 1). The sites are located within an elevational range of 1860–2493 m above sea level, with annual mean temperature range of 18–19.5 °C, and annual mean rainfall of 815–1255 mm (Table 1). There was a significant drought in 2015 which was an El Niño year. The climates at Ada’a/Gimbichu and Giner are characterized as “hot to warm sub humid” while Damote-Gale is “Hot to warm moist”. T’eff (Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter), wheat (Triticum spp.) and maize (Zea mays L.) are the most important cereal crops, but the crop mix varies among locations with more diversity at Damote-Gale (Table 1). All Woredas have a mixed farming system with crops and livestock. In all cases, chickpea is grown on residual moisture immediately following the main crop harvest – wheat (Ginir), teff (Ada’a/Gimbichu) and maize and/or tubers and spices (Damote-Gale). The soils of the trial sites are Eutric Vertisols at Ada’a/Gimbichu and Giner while Humic Nitisols are dominant at Damote-Gale (Table 1).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Map showing the Woredas where the on-farm trials were conducted (2012–2015).

Table 1.

Agro-ecological characteristics of the study Woredas.

Central (Ada'a/Gimbichu) Southern (Damot Gale) South-eastern (Ginir)
Agroecological zonea Hot to warm sub humid Hot to warm moist Hot to warm sub humid
Dominant soil typeb Eutric Vertisols Humic Nitisols Eutric Vertisols
Annual mean rainfall (mm)c 815 1127 1254
Annual mean min T (°C)c 10.5 13.8 13.3
Annual mean max T (°C)c 25.5 25.1 24.6
Annual mean T (°C)c 18.0 19.5 19.0
Rainfall (mm), in the year of experimentation
 2012 726 1033 1174
 2013 738 1487 1450
 2014 762 1215 1426
 2015 687 776 967
Main crops Teff, wheat, chickpea Maize, sweet potato, common bean Wheat, barley, teff, black cumin
Open in a new tab

±Weather data observed (Eth. Meteorological services).

b

Harmonized Soil Database, FAO (2012).

c

NMA: long-term mean rainfall and temperature.

2.2. On-farm demonstration trials

In 2012 and 2013, 23 farmers participated in on-farm demonstration trials. In the 2014 and 2015 seasons, the number of farmers participating increased to 93. The demonstration trials served for learning about improved chickpea technology packages through farmers’ field days, visits and technology evaluation events organized for large number of farmers from adjoining Kebeles (villages). Plots were selected to be accessible for farmers and visible to passers-by. The trials were not replicated on each farm, but farms were considered as replicates (Table 2).

Table 2.

Chickpea varieties used in the on-farm trials from 2012 to 2015 in Ethiopia.

Variety/cultivar name Type Adaptation Elevation Range (masl) Maturity days Seed color Grain yield (t ha−1)
Potentiala On-farma
Arerti Kabuli 1900–2600 105–155 White 2.6–4.6 2.0–3.2
Habru Kabuli 1800–2600 91–150 White 2.4–3.2 –
Natoli Desi 1800–2700 88–142 Light golden 1.1–4.6 3.5–3.7
Open in a new tab
a

0–100 kg ha−1 DAP (NPK: 18:46:0), no inoculation.

Sources: MoARD (2009).

Trials included four treatments; an uninoculated and unfertilized control plot (C), a plot inoculated with rhizobium (I), inoculated but with phosphorus fertilizer (P), and both rhizobium inoculated and phosphorus fertilized (P + I). Due to lack of availability, the phosphorus fertilizers sources differ over the seasons, and were TSP (tri-super phosphate) in 2012, DAP (di-ammonium phosphate) in 2013–2014 and an NPS blend in 2015. The rate was held constant at 23 P2O5 kg ha−1 (13 kg P ha−1) applied at sowing. Altogether, three improved chickpea varieties (two Kabuli type – Arerti and Habru and one Desi type – Natoli) were selected on the basis of local adaptation and market preferences (Table 2). Natoli and Habru are short to medium maturity (88–150 days) while the Arerti has relatively long duration (105–155 days). Seed was sown in rows 30–40 cm apart, spaced 10 cm within rows. Each treatment plot measured 10 m by 10 m with 1 m paths separating the plots.

Inoculants were purchased from the sole commercial inoculant producer in Ethiopia: Menagesha Biotech Industry PLC, Addis Ababa. The inoculants used lignite as a carrier and two chickpea Mesorhizobium strains (CP-41 in 2012 and CP-029 in 2013–2015). These strains have been tested under a wide range of ecological conditions in Ethiopia (Tena et al., 2016; Funga et al., 2016). Seeds were inoculated at a rate of 5 g of inoculant per kg of seed using sugar solution as a sticker. Inoculation was done under shade and the inoculated seed was kept for few minutes until air dry before planting. In all farms, uninoculated treatments plots were sown first to avoid cross contamination.

Composite soil samples were collected before planting at depth of 0–20 cm sampled at 13 even intervals in a “W” pattern throughout the field. The samples were weighed, air-dried, ground to pass through a 2 mm sieve before analysis. Soils were analysed following standard laboratory procedures in soil laboratories in Ethiopia (2012–2014) and at IITA at Ibadan, Nigeria (2015) for pH (1:1 soil to H2O), organic C (Walkley–Black), total N (Kjeldahl), P Mehlich, and exchangeable K, Ca and Mg according to standard procedures (IITA, 1982). The composite soil sample from each field at Damote-Gale was used to determine the population of rhizobia compatible to chickpea following most-probable-number (MPN) plant infection count (Somasegaran and Hoben, 1994) during the 2012 crop season.

Plots were sown between mid-August and late-September and managed by the farmers assisted by a development agent (DA) or field technician, who were responsible for keeping records of different operations. Nodulation was assessed at mid flowering growth stage at Damote (in 2012 and 2014) from randomly sampled ten plants in the plot at each of the respective treatments. The plants were uprooted carefully, washed and the number of nodules recorded. At the end of the season, each plot was harvested discarding single border rows at each edge. The total biomass (the grain and stover) was weighed at harvest and the grain (after threshing) weighed separately. Plants were sampled randomly from 28 farms in each season. At physiological maturity, five non-border plants were sampled from the respective treatment plots, separated into grain and straw, oven dried at 70 °C to a constant weight and ground to pass through a 1 mm sieve prior to analysis for N (semi-micro Kjeldahl digestion followed by distillation).

2.3. Statistical analysis

It was not possible to measure all variables at all locations and/or growing seasons. A total of 144 trials were established, but reliable yield data was recorded for only 107 trials. As geographic location of trials was largely confounded with each year, a year/location factor was created by assigning a unique level to each specific combination of year and location. Mean effects of phosphorus and inoculation on grain yield, and interaction with year/location were estimated by fitting the following linear mixed model:

gy ∼ YL + P + I + P:I + YL:P + YL:I + trial

Where gy is grain yield, YL is the year/location factor, P and I are two-level factors for the application of phosphorus and inoculant, trial is a random factor for individual trials (farms) and “:” is an interaction term. We thereby ignored the higher-level, three-way, interaction between P, I and year/location. Significance was tested with a type-III ANOVA using the Satterthwaite approximation for the denominator degrees of freedom. For the four individual combinations of treatment levels, T, means, standard errors and Least Significant Differences (LSD) at the 5 percent level were calculated using the model:

gy ∼ YL + T + YL:T + trial

Mean separation of treatment groups within year/location was done at P < .05, using Tukey’s adjustment for multiple comparisons. For testing the effect of soil properties on response to P and I we fit the model:

gy ∼ P + I + P:I + X + X:(P + I) + (Z|YL/trial)

Where X is an individual soil property and (Z|YL/trial) is a random term accounting for year/location and trial, with Z being a random intercept for each level of YL and trial (Z = 1) or, alternatively, a set of YL and trial specific responses to P and I (Z = P + I). In the latter case, the interaction between X and P and I is corrected for location-specific responses to inputs.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Soil properties

The soil textural classes were different among the Woredas, silt clay aAda’a and Gimbichu (Central Ethiopia), silty clay loam at Damote (Southern) and clay at Ginir (South East) and with low to moderate C contents (Table 3). Most of the farms had low average soil N content (Hazelton and Murphy, 2007) and very low average concentration of available P (Mallarino et al., 2013). The latter was moderate at Damote. The soil pH was neutral for all Woredas, except for Gimbichu where it was moderately alkaline. The CEC was moderate at all location, except Ada’a where CEC was very high (Hazelton and Murphy, 2007).

Table 3.

Average soil properties of fields with demonstration trials on farmer’s plots at different Woredas.

Woreda n pH (H2O) OC (%) Total N (%) P Meh. (mg kg−1) Exchangeable cations (cmol+ kg−1)
 Soil texture (%)
Ca Mg K CEC Sand Silt Clay Class
Ada'a 19 6.6a 1.90a 0.13a 11.34ab 24.06a 3.97a 0.81a 45.62a 24 31 45 Silty clay
Damote* 27 6.7a 1.40b 0.13a 34.57a 16.87a 3.35a 3.29b 19.13b 32 29 39 Silty clay loam
Gimbichu* 7 7.7b 1.03b 0.12a 10.21ab 19.98a 2.08a 0.56a 22.69b 22 30 48 Silty clay
Ginir* 4 6.9ab 1.47ab 0.17a 4.79b 22.45a 4.08a 0.84ab 27.40b 38 22 40 Clay
Open in a new tab

Subscripts (within the columns) indicate differences in the soil properties across locations at the 0.05 level after Tukey adjustment for multiple.

*

Values for % sand, silt and clay at 0–15 cm predicted (ISRIC 250 m soil property maps, www.soilgrids.org).

3.2. Chickpea grain yield response to P and/or I

Overall, the treatments significantly increased chickpea grain yield (p < .0001, Table 4 and Suppl. Fig. 1). Compared with the yield on the control plots, P and I increased chickpea grain yield by 413 and 335 kg ha−1, respectively. The combined effect of P + I averaged 604 kg ha−1, with no significant interaction between P and I (p = .1085, Table 4). The grain yield obtained with P + I was significantly different (P < .05) from the application of only one of the treatments. Grain yields with either P or I alone, though significantly different from the control and the P + I plots, were not statistically different from one another.

Table 4.

Average chickpea grain yields (kg ha−1) for control (no inputs), P, I and P + I treatments in on-farm demonstration trials in different years/locations in Ethiopia. P = 23 kg P2O5 kg ha−1 applied as DAP, TSP or NPS; I = seeds inoculated with Mesorhizobium inoculum.

Year/Location n control I P P + I LSD (treatments within Year/Location) SE
2012/Damote 17 1593a 2043bc 1951b 2194c 152 128
2013/Damote 3 1747 1796 2029 1843 ns 306
2014/Adaa 41 1937 a 2272b 2197b 2548c 98 83
2014/Damote 25 2006a 2560b 2501b 3091c 125 106
2015/Adaa 4 1693a 2348bc 2089b 2453c 313 265
2015/Damote 7 1443a 1588 ab 1746bc 1919c 237 200
2015/Gimbichu 6 1510a 2413c 1806b 2326c 256 216
2015/Ginir 4 958a 1170ab 1252ab 1349b 313 265
Total 107 1611a 2024b 1946b 2215c 88 74
Open in a new tab

Subscripts indicate the groups within location/year (the row) different at the 0.05 level after Tukey adjustment for multiple comparisons. ns = non-significant at P < .05. SE and LSD are the standard error of the means and the 0.05 LSD within year/location, respectively.

Year/location combinations differed significantly in terms of control yields (p < .0001) and response to both P and I (p < .0001), with a very small response observed in 2013/Damote-Gale and a large response in 2014/Damote-Gale (Suppl. Fig. 1). Average grain yield of farms with P + I treatment for individual year/locations were consistently greater than for the control plots. The lack of response in 2013 in Damote-Gale (Table 4) was an exception, which might be attributed to a small number of replicate fields. Comparing year/location results, the largest average grain yield (3091 kg ha−1) was obtained from 2014/Damote-Gale; the average grain yield in the control treatment (2006 kg ha−1) was also relatively large in this season and location. The relatively larger amount of total rainfall received and favourable distributions during the 2014 growing season presumably resulted in such large yields. On the other hand, the least yields of all the treatments were recorded in the 2015 growing season at Ginir. This location received in 2015 only 66% of the rainfall in normal years, with terminal drought occurring after flowering (Table 1). Moreover, uniformly poor chickpea grain yield was evident for all the experimental locations during 2015 as the country experienced the worst drought in history coinciding with a strong El Niño impact. Moisture availability is key for attaining high dry matter and seed yield in legumes (Singh and Rana, 2006; Walley, 1986). The influence of moisture stress on plant growth and legume-rhizobium symbiosis depends on the degree of the stress and the plant physiological growth stage (Zahran, 1999; Hungria and Vargas, 2000).

3.3. Nodulation, total N uptake and response to P and/or I

We were only able to estimate the size of the native rhizobium population in eight soils at Damote-Gale in 2012: in four of these we could not detect any rhizobia and in the remaining soils, the population was less than 10 cfu g−1 of soil. Although this was a small sample of soils, they were randomly selected from the 20 farmer’s plots studied in 2012 and are likely to be generally representative of the rhizobium population densities in this region.

Nodule counts were recorded on farms at Damote-Gale (2012 and 2014) and Adaa’ (2014) and overall inoculation enhanced the nodulation of chickpea, though the nodule counts vary in the different year/locations. Nodule counts of 22–48 per plant were recorded in the I and P + I treatments whereas this varied from 6 to 21 in non-inoculated control plots (data not presented). Overall, all treatments significantly improved the total N uptake in chickpea plants (Table 5), suggesting a well-functioning symbiosis. Inoculation, either alone or in combination with P, increased N uptake on average by 14–25 kg ha−1 as compared with the control (Table 5). The largest and significant N uptake was recorded from the P + I treatment while P and I were statistically on par. In contrast to the overall predicted mean, the N uptake across the different year/locations varied. However, for almost all years/locations, the smallest values were consistently recorded from the control plots. Increased N uptake recorded in plots with inoculation treatments were attributed to effective nitrogen fixation in inoculated plants. Chickpea is known to be specific for its rhizobial requirements (Tena et al., 2016; SPG, 2016) and generally responds well to inoculation (Ben Romdhane et al., 2008; Funga et al., 2016; Khaitov et al., 2016). MPN assessment in soil samples at representative farms in the study area resulted in low count of rhizobia compatible with chickpea. Inoculation is beneficial for the crop in soils where there is a small population of compatible rhizobia (Thies et al., 1991a, Thies et al., 1991b). Despite the observed variation in N uptake between individual year/locations, the relatively less uptake at specific locations (notably at Ginir/2015) is to be noted. Though data on nodulation status of chickpea plants growing at this specific site was not recorded, the terminal drought that occurred during the growing season might be a reason for the low N uptake (Table 1). It is generally known that drought seriously affects attachment of the bacteria to the root hairs, nodulation and N fixation in legumes (Zahran, 1999).

Table 5.

Total N uptake by chickpea (kg ha−1) for control (no inputs), P, I and P + I treatments in on-farm trials in different years/locations in Ethiopia. P = 23 kg P2O5 kg ha−1 applied as DAP or TSP; I = seeds inoculated with Mesorhizobium inoculum.

Year/Location n control I P P + I LSD (treatments within Year/Location) SE
2012/Damote 6 39.7a 77.9c 59.8b 94.8d 11.8 8.4
2013/Damote 1 42.5 46.2 61.5 62.6 ns 20.7
2015/Ada’a 4 69.3a 95.2b 81.0ab 91.8b 14.5 10.3
2015/Damote 5 67.0ab 60.4 a 69.4 ab 75.7b 12.9 9.2
2015/Gimbichu 7 60.7a 85.5b 65.6a 85.0b 10.9 7.8
2015/Ginir 5 42.0a 38.3a 40.6a 58.2b 12.9 9.2
Overall 28 53.5 a 67.3 b 63.0 b 78.0 c 6.7 4.8
Open in a new tab

Subscripts indicate the groups within location/year (row) different at the 0.05 level after Tukey adjustment for multiple comparisons. ns = no significant difference at P < .05. SE and LSD are the standard error of the means and the 0.05 LSD within year/location, respectively.

3.4. Soil properties and response to inoculation and phosphorus application

It is possible that different responses to P and I between different years/locations or individual fields are due to differences in soil properties. Nitrogen fixation by rhizobia is known to be affected by soil properties such as pH and N content, while the effectiveness of phosphorus fertilizer may be reduced by soil acidity (Hungria and Vargas, 2000; Andrade et al., 2002; Zerihun et al., 2015). We therefore tested the relationship between grain yield responses to inoculation and phosphorus application at individual farms and individual soil properties [pH, %N, %OC, CEC, K and Ca (cmol + kg−1)], with and without correction for year/location. Without year/location correction, inoculation response was significantly and positively affected by %N and %OC, while response to phosphorus fertilizer was positively affected by K. None of these relations were significant after correction for year/location, however, suggesting that the effect of soil properties on response to P and I is relatively weak and/or confounded with year/location.

Confounding is particularly apparent in the case of the effect of %N on inoculation response. Observed responses were considerably lower for a small set of fields with very high soil N contents (N > 0.25%) (left side of Fig. 2), compared to the majority of fields with N < 0.25%, the former having a mean response of only 149 kg ha−1 against 488 kg ha−1 for the latter (p < .05). In itself, this result is consistent with the expectation that the response to inoculation will be strongest in soils where N is limiting. However, the farms with large %N were all sampled in Damote in 2015, a year/location in which response to inoculation was relatively low on average (Table 4). This makes it impossible, given the small number of fields with N > 0.25%, to disentangle the effect of soil N from that of other unobserved year/location-level effects.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Relationship between total soil N content (%) and chickpea grain yield (kg ha−1) with and without inoculation.

3.5. Variability in grain yield and responses to P and/or I

Increased chickpea grain yield due to application of P and/or I was evident on most target farms, with only few exceptions where yields on inoculated plots were similar or inferior to those on the corresponding control plots (Fig. 3). However, grain yields on control plots and responses to the treatments on individual farms varied greatly. Thus, observed yield on control plots ranged from 521 kg ha−1 (2012/Damote-Gale) to 3054 kg ha−1 (2014/Damote-Gale), whereas the yields with P and/or I ranged from 640 kg ha−1 (2015/Ginir) to 4500 kg ha−1 (2014/Ada’a) (Fig. 3). These yields can be considered with reference to the national average yield, which is currently about 1800 kg ha−1 (CSA, 2016).

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

Chickpea grain yields control (kg ha−1) and response to P, I and P + I for individual farms in the target Woredas in Ethiopia (2012–2015). P = 23 kg P2O5 ha−1applied as TSP or DAP fertilizer; I = seed inoculated with Mesorhizobium.

Absolute responses were relatively stable across yield levels. Farms with relatively small control yields (521–1800 kg ha−1), less than the national average, responded well to P and/or I, with absolute responses within the range of 400–2200 kg ha−1 (Fig. 4A). However, we did observe minimal yield responses on some of the farms which had very small control yields, with absolute responses less than 400 kg ha−1. Large absolute responses (1800–2200 kg ha−1) were recorded from the two major chickpea producing Woredas, Damote-Gale and Ada’a in 2014 on farms with control yields less than or equal to the national average. As a result of the relatively stable absolute responses, relative responses to P and/or I were larger for farms with small control yields, and decreased with increasing control yields (Fig. 4B). Relative yield responses up to 138% (i.e. more than double) the control yields, were recorded for a number of farmers with control yields less than the national average (<1800 kg ha−1). This indicates a clear opportunity to boost chickpea productivity on-farm using inoculant technology.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Open in a new tab

A Chickpea absolute grain yield (kg ha−1) in the control treatment and response to P, I and P + I for individual farms in the target Woredas in Ethiopia (2012–2015) as absolute yield (kg ha−1; yield of P and/or I minus control yield). B Relative response in grain yield of chickpea to P and/or I plotted against the control yield (%, yield of P and/or I minus control yield divided by control yield).

Given the variable responses to P and I observed in Damote over the four years (Suppl. Fig. 1), it seems that variation is not due to location specific constraints but rather due to random differences between years and individual farms.

3.6. Distribution of the responses to soil fertility treatments

On-farm variability in yield response is a common phenomenon among smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa (Vanlauwe et al., 2016; Ronner et al., 2016). Thus, it is important to look into the distribution of the responses and corresponding benefits due to a specific technology for its wider promotion. Our result indicated that application of the soil fertility treatments have resulted in increased chickpea yield (from at least 3% relative responses and up) for 99% of farms involved in this study, irrespective of differences in agro-ecological location (Fig. 5A and B). However, the frequency and magnitude of the yield response across farms greatly varied. Yield variations across farms is a risk or an opportunity for adoption of new technology by farmers. Good responses (over the control) should be visible on large number of farms at a given location so that farmers decide to take-up the new technology. Of the total number of target farms, 67% obtained 200 kg ha−1 or more extra grain yield (over the control yields) by the application of either P fertilizer or Inoculation alone while the same proportion of farmers produced 450 kg ha−1 or more with combined application of P and I (Fig. 5A). If the yield gain (over control yield) is increased to 1000 kg ha−1 or more, however, this could be achieved by 25% of the farmers applying both P + I, while only 0.8% of the farmers would achieved this if applying P or I (Fig. 5B). Assuming that a 10% yield increase is needed for treatment effects to be visible to farmers (Ronner et al., 2016), 71%, 73% and 92% of the farmers could achieve this (10% yield increase) with application of P, I, and P + I, respectively. However, in reality the larger the magnitude of the yield responses (the larger the amount of yield increased) and the higher the frequency (the more the number of farmers achieving this at a given location), the better the visibility of the benefit to farmers and the greater the chances for adoption of the technology.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5

Open in a new tab

A Cumulative probability of absolute response (kg ha−1) in chickpea yield to P and/or I compared with the control treatment. B Cumulative probability of relative response (kg ha−1) in chickpea yield to P and/or I compared with the control treatme.

3.7. Additive benefits and implication for adoption of inoculant technology

In the target farms, a yield response of 500 kg ha−1 or more over the control yield (absolute yield response) attained with Inoculation and P fertilizer application by 63% of the farmers (Fig. 5A). This response represents 35% or more yield increase (relative response) (Fig. 5B). By contrast, the same level of yield could be achieved by 25% of farmers by inoculation and by 14% of farmers with P application. Assuming a cost benefit of 4000 birr (200 USD) per ha calculated in earlier studies (van den Broek et al., 2014) in local chickpea market in Ethiopia for a yield of 1480 kg ha−1, an absolute response of 500 kg ha−1 would represent 1350 birr (60 USD) additional household income per ha. However, triple price increase for chickpea since 2014 is to be noted, thus resulting in increased benefit to smallholders currently. The benefit would be even more for 25% of the farmers who obtained >1000 kg ha−1 yield over the control because of combined application of P and I (Fig. 5A). While further studies of the adoption of inoculant technology and marketing of chickpea grain are needed, and currently underway with support from the N2Africa project and others, the increasing popularity of inoculants use in legume production in Ethiopia is evident. During the last four years (2012–2015), since the launching of N2Africa project in Ethiopia, inoculant production by a private company – Menagesha Bio-tech Industry (MBI) has expanded six-fold (from 28000 to 165000 sachets annually), while the distribution and sales of inoculants has risen by seven and 13-fold, respectively (Ampadu-Boakye et al., 2017), where chickpea inoculants comprise a substantial proportion of sales. The additive value of inoculation for chickpea production and its cost effectiveness has been well recognized by smallholders and its wider adoption is to be expected.

4. Conclusion

On a wide range of on-farm trials, covering diverse agro-ecological locations over four regions in Ethiopia, inoculation and P fertilizer application increased chickpea grain yields. Despite considerable and seemingly random variation, the response to these inputs was consistently positive. Yields were greatest when both I and P were applied together in combination, with an average increase of 38% over the control plots. No compatible chickpea rhizobia were detected in half of the soil samples tested while the population was less than 10 cfu g−1 of soil in the remainder, explaining why inoculation benefits chickpea growth and yield. Thus, inoculation, alone or in combination with P, enhanced the nodulation of chickpea, stimulated nitrogen fixation and increased N uptake. This is the first time that the benefits of rhizobial inoculation for enhanced nitrogen fixation and yield of chickpea have been demonstrated across large numbers of smallholder farms in Africa. Together with small amounts of P fertilizer, rhizobial inoculation offers a cheap and highly effective means for the sustainable intensification of smallholder agriculture.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for funding through N2Africa: Putting Nitrogen fixation to work for smallholder farmers in Africa (www.N2Africa.org): a grant to Wageningen University in which ILRI is a partner. We thank the farmers, extension workers, researchers and dissemination partners [Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research – Debre-Zeit Agricultural Research Centre (EIAR-DZARC), Oromia Agricultural Research Institute-Sinana Agricultural Research Centre (OARI-SARC), Hawassa University (HwU), Woreda Beauro of Agriculture (BoA)] in the Central, South and South East Ethiopia.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2018.01.035.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

The following is Supplementary data to this article:

mmc1.docx (134.3KB, docx)

References

  1. Ampadu-Boakye T., Stadler M., Kanampiu F. 2017. N2Africa Annual Report 2016. www.N2Africa.org, 89pp. [Google Scholar]
  2. Anbessa Y., Bejiga G. Evaluation of Ethiopian chickpea landraces for tolerance to drought. Gen. Res. Crop Evol. 2002;49(6):557–564. [Google Scholar]
  3. Andrade D.S., Murphy P.J., Giller K.E. The diversity of Phaseolus-nodulating rhizobial populations is altered by liming of acid soils planted with Phaseolus vulgaris L. in Brazil. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2002;68(8):4025–4034. doi: 10.1128/AEM.68.8.4025-4034.2002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. BTL/Bulletin of Tropical Legumes, 2013. Chickpea in Ethiopia – Changing landscapes and Changing Lives, A Bulletin of the Tropical Legumes II Project No. 19, Page 3.
  5. Beck D.P., Wery J., Saxena M.C., Ayadi A. Dinitrogen fixation and nitrogen balance in cool season food legumes. Agron. J. 1991;83:334–341. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bejiga G., van der Maesen L.J.G. In: Cicer arietinum L. Brink M., Belay G., editors. PROTA (Plant Resources of Tropical Africa/Ressources végétales de l’Afrique tropicale); Wageningen, Netherlands: 2006. Accessed 27 November 2016. [Google Scholar]
  7. Ben Romdhane S., Aouani M., Trabelsi M., De Lajudie P., Mhamdi R. Selection of high nitrogen-fixing rhizobia nodulating chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) for semi-arid Tunisia. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2008;194(6):413–420. [Google Scholar]
  8. CSA/Central Statistical Agency/Annual Statistical Abstract (compilationfrom 2003–2014), Retrieved on 23 Dec. 2016 from: http://www.csa.gov.et/national-statistics-abstract-2003-15.html.
  9. CSA/Central Statistics Agency Agricultural Sample Survey 2015/2016 (2008 E.C.). Volume I. Report on Area and Production of Major Crops (Private Peasant Holdings, Meher Season). Statistical Bulletin 584, Addis Ababa. M ay2016, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, p 21.
  10. CSA/Central Statistical Authority Agricultural Sample Survey 2016/2017 (2009 E.C.), Volume I Report on Area and Production of Major Crops (Private Peasant Holdings, Meher Season). Statistical Bulletin 584, April 2017, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, p. 19.
  11. Chianu J.N., Nkonya E.M., Mairura F.S., Akinnifesi F.K. Biological nitrogen fixation and socioeconomic factors for legume production in sub-Saharan Africa: a review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2011;31:139–154. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1051/agro/2010004 [Google Scholar]
  12. FAO . FAO; Rome, Italy: 2012. Harmonized World Soil Database (version 1.2)http://www.fao.org/soils-portal/soil-survey/soil-maps-and-databases/harmonized-world-soil-database-v12/en/ [Google Scholar]
  13. FAOSTAT 2014, retrieved on 23 Dec. 2016 from: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC.
  14. Fikre A. Progresses of chickpea research and development in Ethiopia. In: Korbu L., Damte T., Fikre A., editors. Harnessing Chickpea Value Chain for Nutrition Security and Commercialization of Smallholder Agriculture in Africa, Proceedings of a Workshop; 30th January–1st February, 2014, Debre Zeit, Ethiopia; 2016. pp. 25–39. [Google Scholar]
  15. Franke A.C., Baijukya F., Kantengwa S., Reckling M., Vanlauwe B., Giller K.E. Poor farmers–poor yields: socio-economic, soil fertility and crop management indicators affecting climbing bean productivity in northern Rwanda. Exp. Agric. 2016:1–21. [Google Scholar]
  16. Funga A., Chris O., Ojiewo O.C., Turoop L., Githiri Stephen Mwangi S.G. Symbiotic effectiveness of elite rhizobia strains nodulating Desi type chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) varieties. J. Plant Sci. 2016;4(4):88–94. http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/j/jps [Google Scholar]
  17. Giller K.E., Franke A.C., Abaidoo R., Baijukya F., Bala A., Boahen S., Dashiell K., Kantengwa S., Sanginga J.-M., Sanginga N., Simmons A.J., Turner A., de Wolf J., Woomer P., Vanlauwe B. N2Africa: putting nitrogen fixation to work for smallholder farmers in Africa. In: Vanlauwe B., van Asten P.J.A., Blomme G., editors. Agro-ecological Intensification of Agricultural Systems in the African Highlands. Routledge; London: 2013. pp. 156–174. [Google Scholar]
  18. Giller K.E. CAB International; Wallingford: 2001. Nitrogen Fixation in Tropical Cropping Systems. [Google Scholar]
  19. Hazelton P., Murphy B. CSIRO; Collingwood Victoria, Australia: 2007. Interpreting Soil Test Results: What Do All the Numbers Mean? [Google Scholar]
  20. Hungria M., Vargas A.T.M. Environmental factors affecting N2 fixation in grain legumes in the tropics, with an emphasis on Brazil. Field Crop Res. 2000;65:151–164. [Google Scholar]
  21. IITA . International Institute of Tropical Agriculture; Ibadan, Nigeria: 1982. IITA Manual Series No. 7: Automated and Semi-Automated Methods of Soil and Plant Analysis. p. 33. [Google Scholar]
  22. Jarso M., Keneni G., Wolabu T. Enhancing the technical relevance of pulses and oilseed crops through target oriented breeding, pp. 45–65 oilseeds: engine for economic development. Proceedings of the Second National Oilseeds Workshop, 24–26 March 2010; Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR) Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  23. Kantar F., Shivakumar B.G., Arrese-Igor C., Hafeez F., González E.M., Imran A., Larrainzar E. Efficient biological nitrogen fixation under warming climates. In: Yadav Shyam S., McNeil David L., Redden Robert, Patil Sharanagouda A., editors. Climate Change and Management of Cool Season Grain Legume Crops. Springer; New York: 2010. pp. 283–306. [Google Scholar]
  24. Khaitov B., Kurbonov A., Abdiev A., Adilov M. Effect of chickpea in association with Rhizobium to crop productivity and soil fertility. Eurasian J. Soil Sci. 2016;5(2):105–112. [Google Scholar]
  25. Mallarino A.P., Sawyer J.E., Barnhart S.K. Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University; Iowa: 2013. A General Guide for Crop Nutrient and Limestone Recommendations in Lowa. [Google Scholar]
  26. MoARD/Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, 2009. Crop Variety Register. Issue No. 12. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
  27. Namvar A., Sharifi R.S. Phenological and morphological response of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) to symbiotic and mineral nitrogen fertilization. Žemdirbystė (Agric.) 2011;98(2):121–130. https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/20113272755 [Google Scholar]
  28. Ojiewo O.C. Chickpea production, technology adoption and market linkages in Ethiopia. Paper Presented at Pan-African Grain Legume and World Cowpea Conference; Feb 28–Mar 4, 2016, Livingstone-Zambia; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  29. Ronner E., Franke A.C., Vanlauwe B., Dianda M., Edeh E., Ukem B., Bala A., van Heerwaarden J., Giller K.E. Understanding variability in soybean yield and response to P-fertilizer and rhizobium inoculants on farmers’ fields in northern Nigeria. Field Crops Res. 2016;186:133–145. [Google Scholar]
  30. SPG/Saskatchewan Pulse Growers, 2016. Retrieved on Nov. 10, 2016 from: http://saskpulse.com/growing/chickpeas-beans/inoculation-and-fertility/.
  31. Shiferaw B., Teklewold H. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute); Nairobi, Kenya: 2007. Structure and Functioning of Chickpea Markets in Ethiopia: Evidence Based on Analyses of Value Chains Linking Smallholders and Markets. Improving Productivity and Market Success (IPMS) of Ethiopian Farmers Project Working Paper 6. 63 pp. [Google Scholar]
  32. Shiferaw B., Bantilan M.C.S., Serraj R. Harnessing the potentials of BNF for poor farmers: technological, Policy and Institutional Constraints and Research needs. In: Serraj R., editor. Symbiotic Nitrogen Fixation: Prospects for Enhanced Application in Tropical Agriculture. Oxford & IBH Publishing; New Delhi: 2004. pp. 3–27. [Google Scholar]
  33. Singh T., Rana K.S. Effect of moisture conservation and fertility on Indian mustard (Brassica juncea) and lentil (Lens culinaris) intercropping system under rain-fed conditions. Indian J. Agron. 2006;51(4):267–270. [Google Scholar]
  34. Somasegaran P., Hoben H.J. Springer; Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: 1994. Handbook for Rhizobia; Methods in Legume-Rhizobium Technology. [Google Scholar]
  35. Tena W., Wolde-Meskel E., Walley F. Response of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) to inoculation with native and exotic Mesorhizobium strains in Southern Ethiopia. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2016;15(35):1920–1929. [Google Scholar]
  36. Thies J.E., Singleton P.W., Bohlool B.B. Influence of the size of indigenous rhizobial populations on establishment and symbiotic performance of introduced rhizobia on field-grown legumes. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1991;57:19–28. doi: 10.1128/aem.57.1.19-28.1991. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Thies J.E., Singleton P.W., Bohlool B.B. Modelling symbiotic performance of introduced rhizobia in the field by use of indices of indigenous population size and nitrogen status of the soil. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1991;57:29–37. doi: 10.1128/aem.57.1.29-37.1991. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. van den Broek J., Sertse Y., Becx G., Asrat P., Beyene t. Dilnesaw Z., Ewnetu Y., Getachew Y., Getahun A., Getaw H., Michael A., Mulugeta M., Shiferaw M., Somano W., Tefera B., Tefera E., Teshome K. Resilience; Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: 2014. Landscaping Study, Legume Value-Chains in Ethiopia; p. 38. [Google Scholar]
  39. Vanlauwe B., Coe R., Giller K. Beyond averages: new approaches to understand heterogeneity and risk of technology success or failure in smallholder farming. Exp. Agric. 2016:1–23. [Google Scholar]
  40. Walley F.L. University of Manitoba; Canada: 1986. The Effect of Nitrogen and Moisture Availability on Growth and Symbiotic Nitrogen Fixation in Lentils (Lens Culinaris)https://mspace.lib.umanitoba.ca/xmlui/handle/1993/9448 (MSc thesis) [Google Scholar]
  41. Zahran H.H. Rhizobium-legume symbiosis and nitrogen fixation under severe conditions and in an arid climate. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 1999;63(4):968–989. doi: 10.1128/mmbr.63.4.968-989.1999. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Zerihun A., Alemayo D., Wolde-Meskel E. On-farm yield responses of soybean [Glycine max L. (Merrill)] to fertilizer sources under different soil acidity status in Gobu Sayo district, western Ethiopia. J. Agron. 2015;14:30–36. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

mmc1.docx (134.3KB, docx)

RESOURCES