Minimum tillage and mulching effect on cowpea yield and soil water content

W. Mupangwa,1,2 S. Twomlow,1 S. Walker2

1*
ICRISAT-Bulawayo, Matopos Research Station, PO Box 776, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe
2
Department of Soil, Crop and Climate Sciences, University of Free State, Bloemfontein,
South Africa.
w.mupangwa@cgiar.org or mupangwa@yahoo.com

Introduction

Agricultural land management practices such as mulching and minimum tillage can
significantly influence the success of legume and cereal rotations. Mulching can improve
soil water supply to crops through reduced runoff and soil evaporation, increased
infiltration and water storage. Studies conducted in the higher potential areas of
Zimbabwe between 1988 and 1995 indicated that mulching significantly reduced surface
runoff and hence soil loss (Erenstein, 2002). The mulching material at the
soil−atmosphere interface holds rainwater at the soil surface thereby giving it more time
to infiltrate into the soil. Mulch cover shields the soil from solar radiation thereby
reducing evaporation from the soil.

Conservation agriculture, recently introduced in smallholder agriculture of Zimbabwe, is

a system that encourages minimum soil disturbance and use of mulch cover for moisture
and weed management among other benefits. It emphasizes rotation of cereals and
legumes in a permanent grid of planting positions. A fixed grid of planting positions is
established during the dry season and nutrients are applied to those fixed planting
stations. However the challenge lies with accommodating legumes and cereals in similar
planting positions every growing season without compromising on minimum soil
disturbance principle and yield of either cereal or legume crop. This trial was designed to
determine (i) the effect of planting basin, ripper and conventional tillage systems and
mulching on cowpea yields and soil water content and (ii) the optimum mulching rate for
semi-arid Zimbabwe.

Materials and methods

Experimental set up

The experiment was run at the International Crops Research Institute for Semi-Arid
Tropics (ICRISAT), Matopos Research Station, during 2005/06 and 2006/07 growing
seasons on clay soil. The experiment was set up using a split plot design with three
replications. The main plot factor was tillage method (planting basins, ripper and
conventional plough) with mulch cover (0, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8 and 10 t ha−1) as a subplot
factor. Plots were pegged out in October of the first year, and then maintained in
subsequent seasons. Tillage was established on 63 m × 6 m strips and seven mulch levels
were randomly allocated to sub-plots measuring 8 m × 6 m on each tillage treatment.
Each plot was separated by a 1 m pathway to avoid movement of residue from one plot to

1
the next when tillage was undertaken. All tillage operations were carried out after
applying mulching material to each sub-plot. Planting basins were dug at 0.6 m × 0.9 m
spacing using a hand hoe and each basin measured 0.15 m (length) × 0.15 m (width) ×
0.15 m (depth). Rip lines were opened at 0.9 m inter-row spacing using a ripper tine
attached to the beam of a donkey-drawn mouldboard plough. The ripping depth achieved
varied between 0.15 and 0.18 m. Conventional ploughing was done soon after the first
effective rain in December each year using a donkey-drawn VS10 mouldboard plough.
Planting furrows were then opened at inter-row spacing of 0.6 m. An in-row spacing of
0.2 m was used in conventional and ripper systems. In 2005/06 planting in all treatments
was done on 16 December 2005. In 2006/07 season planting in the planting basin and
ripper systems was done on 22 November 2006. Planting in the conventional system was
done on 8 December 2006. Five seeds were planted per-basin while 2 seeds were planted
per-station in the conventional and ripper systems. Plants were thinned to 4 per basin in
planting basin and one plant per station in the ripping and conventional tillage treatments
two weeks after emergence. Weeds were controlled by hand hoe as required in both
seasons.

Data collection and analysis

Daily rainfall was measured by a standard raingauge throughout each season. At harvest
grain yield was estimated from a net plot consisting of the five middle rows of 6 m
length. Grain samples were dried at 60 ºC for 48 hours for moisture adjustment. Grain
weight was converted to a per hectare basis at 12.5% moisture content. In 2006/07
volumetric water content was measured weekly using a Capacitance Probe. All data were
analyzed by ANOVA (Genstat version 8.1) with split plot design for cowpea yield data
and unbalanced design for soil water. Probability levels of 0.001, 0.01 and 0.05 were
used to determine level of significance between treatment means.

Results and discussion

Seasonal rainfall

The 2005/06 and 2006/07 cropping seasons were characterised by different rainfall
patterns with 2005/06 season recording above-normal seasonal rainfall total while
2006/07 was a drought year. Rainfall was fairly distributed between December 2005 and
January 2006 during the 2005/06 growing season. The highest daily rainfall event of 80
mm was recorded on 2 December 2005 during the 2005/06 season. December 2005
recorded the highest monthly rainfall total of 383 mm. During 2006/07 season most
rainfall events were concentrated between November and December 2006. January 2007
was the second driest month of the 2006/07 season with a total of 12 mm recorded for
that month.

Cowpea stand

In 2005/06 season planting basins had a higher (P = 0.035) plant stand than ripper and
conventional ploughing tillage treatments (Table 1). In the drier 2006/07 season there

2
was better cowpea establishment in the ripper tillage system. The poor stand in the
planting basin system can be attributed to rodent attack that was experienced at Matopos
Research Station fields. It was relatively easier for the rodents to identify planting
positions under the planting basin system than ripper and conventional ploughing
treatments. Mulching had no significant influence on cowpea crop establishment (Table
2). Across the 2 seasons there was a decrease in plant stand when mulch cover was
increased from 4 to 8 and 10 tha-1.

Cowpea yields

The 2-way interaction of tillage technique and mulch cover had no significant influence
on cowpea grain production in 2005/06 and 2006/078 growing seasons. During the
relatively wet 2005/06 growing season tillage and mulch treatments had no significant
(P>0.05) influence on grain production. In 2006/07 season which had below-normal
rainfall conventional ploughing gave significantly (P = 0.003) lower grain yield than
ripper and planting basin tillage treatments (Table 3). In 2006/07 season cowpea was
planted in the conventional system 16 days after planting in ripper and planting basin
systems. The cowpea crop in the conventional system was heavily attacked by aphids
during the dry spells experienced between January and February 2007. The first long dry
spell stretched from 1 to 16 January 2007 and was broken by a 12 mm rainfall event on
17 January. The second dry spell that affected the crop stretched from 18 January to 6
February 2007. In 2006/07 season cowpea grain yield increased (P = 0.021) with increase
in mulch cover with highest yield recorded at 4 tha-1 mulch cover (Table 4). Application
of 4 tha-1 mulch cover gave 228 and 221 kgha-1 more grain than 8 and 10 tha-1 mulch
treatments. The lower cowpea yields obtained at 8 and 10 tha-1 mulch cover can be
attributed to inferior plant stand recorded under these two mulch treatments (Table 2).
Cowpea yields achieved in this study were comparable with results obtained previously at
Matopos Research Station by Ncube (2007). Cowpea grain yields achieved in our study
were greater than the national yield average of 0.3 tha-1 reported by Nhamo et al. (2003).
The differences between national average yields and our study results could be attributed
to soil fertility differences of experimental sites. In the smallholder farming sector
cowpea is normally grown on residual fertility and nutrient depleted granitic sands. The
red clay soil at Matopos Research Station is nutritionally superior to soils in the
smallholder sector.

Soil Water Content

Soil water responses to tillage and mulching

Soil water changes in the different tillage and mulching treatments followed a similar
pattern during 2006/07 season (Fig. 2). Under the three tillage treatments 4 and 10 tha-1
mulch cover maintained higher profile water content particularly during drying cycles
between November 2006 and February 2007. The 4 and 10 tha-1 mulch cover could have
reduced soil evaporation during the dry periods. Mulch cover shields the soil from solar
radiation thereby reducing evaporation from the soil (Erenstein, 2002). Hatfield et al.

3
(2001) reported a 34–50% reduction in soil water evaporation as a result of crop residue
mulching. In the conventional ploughing system 2 tha-1 had the lowest profile water
content throughout the season. In the planting basin system 0 tha-1 mulch treatment had
the lowest profile water content particularly between November 2006 and February 2007.

Water changes in different soil layers under 3 tillage systems

Water content in the different soil layers varied significantly (P<0.001) especially
between November 2006 and February 2007 (Fig. 3). In all tillage systems the top layer
(0-0.15 m) responded to rainfall events more strongly than deeper layers. The top layer
also lost water faster during drying cycles. Soil water content in the deepest layer (0.35-
0.45 m) increased as the season progressed while 0.15-0.25 m layer was the driest
throughout the season. The top 2 soil layers probably lost water through crop uptake and
evaporation. Most cowpea roots are reportedly concentrated in the top 0.5 m soil layer
and root density decreases progressively with soil depth (Moroke et al., 2005).

Conclusion and recommendations

The study revealed that cowpea crop establishment could be a problem in a cropping
season with below-normal rainfall pattern. Late planted cowpea crop is prone to pest
attack particularly aphids during mid-season dry spells and this significantly
compromises yield. Cowpea yields achievable under conservation agriculture systems are
quite comparable or even better than those achieved from a well managed conventional
system. The wider crop spacing in the planting basin system can be compensated for by
having more cowpea plants growing per-basin. In a clay soil water patterns under
conventional ploughing, ripper and planting basin systems are quite similar even in
drought years. Although 4 and 10 tha-1 mulch cover had higher soil water content during
dry stages of the cropping period, smallholder farmers in semi-arid southern Zimbabwe
could use 4 tha-1 if crop residues are available.

Acknowledgements

This paper is a contribution to WaterNet Challenge Program Project 17 “Integrated Water

Resource Management for Improved Rural Livelihoods: Managing risk, mitigating
drought and improving water productivity in the water scarce Limpopo Basin”. The
assistance of the support staff at ICRISAT is greatly appreciated.

References

Anderson, J.M. and Ingram, J.S.I. 1993. Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility: A Handbook
of Methods, 2nd edition. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. 221pp
Erenstein, O., 2002. Crop residue mulching in tropical and semi-tropical countries: An
evaluation of residue availability and other technological implications. Soil and
Tillage Research 67, 115-133
Hatfield, J. L., Sauer, T. J., Prueger, J. H., 2001. Managing soils to achieve greater water
use efficiency: A review. Agron. J. 93, 271-280.

4
Mupangwa, W., Twomlow, S., Walker, S. and Hove, L. 2007. Effect of mulching and
minimum tillage on maize (Zea mays L.) yield and soil water content on clayey
and sandy soils. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, doi:10.1016/j.pce
Ncube, B. 2007. Understanding cropping systems in the semi-arid environments of
Zimbabwe: options for soil fertility management. PhD Thesis, Wageningen
University, Wageningen, The Neatherlands. 155pp.
Nhamo, N., Mupangwa, W., Siziba, S., Gatsi, T. and Chikazhunga, D. 2003. The role of
cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) and other grain legumes in the management of
soil fertility in the smallholder farming sector of Zimbabwe. In: Waddington, S.R.
(Ed.). Grain legume and green manures for soil fertility in Southern Africa:
Taking Stock of progress. Proceedings of a conference held 8-11 October 2002 at
Leopard Rock Hotel, Vumba, Zimbabwe. Soil Fert Net and Cimmyt-Zimbabwe,
Harare, Zimbabwe. 246pp.

Table 1: Effect of tillage method on cowpea plant stand (plants/m2) on a red clay soil at
Matopos Research Station
Tillage method Season Across seasons
2005/06 2006/07
Plough 4.5 2.1 3.3
Ripper 4.5 4.0 4.2

5
Planting basins 6.3 2.9 4.6
sed 0.50 0.55 0.20
P-value 0.035 0.061 0.008

Table 2: Effect of mulch cover on cowpea plant stand (plants/m2) on a red clay soil at
Matopos Research Station
Mulch (tha-1) Season Across seasons
2005/06 2006/07
0 5.1 3.4 4.3
0.5 5.4 3.3 4.4

6
1 5.4 3.2 4.3
2 4.8 3.2 4.0
4 5.3 3.2 4.3
8 4.7 2.5 3.6
10 5.0 2.4 3.7
sed 0.40 0.53 0.34
P-value 0.387 0.284 0.119

Table 3: Cowpea yield responses to three tillage systems at Matopos Research Station
during 2005/06 and 2006/07 growing seasons
Tillage method Season Across seasons
2005/06 2006/07
Plough 1841 288 1064
Ripper 1938 553 1245

7
Planting basins 1196 543 870
sed 421.8 36.1 201.8
P-value 0.273 0.003 0.287

Table 4: Cowpea yield responses to mulching at Matopos Research Station during

2005/06 and 2006/07 growing seasons
Mulch (tha-1) Season Across seasons
2005/06 2006/07
0 1732 403 1067

8
0.5 1564 423 993
1 1875 440 1157
2 1474 564 1019
4 1800 616 1208
8 1686 388 1037
10 1479 395 937
sed 314.8 75.7 172.5
P-value 0.805 0.021 0.729

1000
900
Cummulative rainfall (mm)

800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time (days after 1 October)
2005/06 2006/07

9
 15 Profile water (mm)
/1
1/
20

0
50
100
150
200
250
06
13
/1
2/
20
06
31
/1
2/
20
06
23
/0
1/
20
07

0
7/
2/
20
07

2
Plough
20
/2
/2
00

Sampling date
7

4
6/
3/
20
07
19

10
/3
/2
00
7

10
 Profile water content (mm) Profile water (mm)

15 15
/1 /1
1/ 1/
20 20

0
50
100
150
200
250
0
50
100
150
200
250

06 06
13 13
/1 /1
2/ 2/
20 20
06 06
31 31
/1 /1
2/ 2/
20 20
06 06
23 23
/0 /0
1/ 1/
20

0
20
0

07 07
7/ 7/

Basin
2/ 2/
Ripper

20 20

2
2

07 07
20 20
Sampling date
/2 /2
/2 /2
00 00

4
7 7
4

Sampling date
6/ 6/
3/ 3/
20 20
07 07
10

19 19
10

/3 /3
/2 /2
00 00
7 7

11
 Soil water(mm) Soil water (mm) Soil water (mm)
15
15 /1
15 /1 1/
/1 1/ 20
20

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1/ 06
20 06

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
06 13 13

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
13 /1 /1
/1 2/ 2/
2/ 20 20

0-15
20 06 06
06 31

0-15
31 31
/1 /1

0-15
/1 2/ 2/
2/ 20 20
20 06
06 06
23 23
/0 /0 23
1/ 1/ /0
20 1/
20 07 20
07 07

15-25
7/ 7/
15-25
2/ 2/

15-25
20 20 7/
2/
Ripper
07

Basins
Plough

07 20
20 20 07
/2 /2
/2 /2 27
00 00 /2
Sampling date

7 7 /2

Sampling date
00

Sampling date
6/ 6/ 7

25-35
3/ 3/
20 20 13
25-35

07 07 /3

25-35
19 /2
/3 19 00
/2 /3
/2
7
00 00
7 7 4/
4/
20
07

35-45
35-45

35-45

12
Figure 1: Cumulative rainfall for 2005/06 and 2006/07 growing seasons at Matopos
Research Station

Figure 2: Soil water changes in response to 3 tillage and mulching treatments during
2006/07 growing season at Matopos Research Station. Error bars represent standard error
of means

Figure 3: Soil water changes in different layers of a clay soil under 3 tillage techniques at
Matopos Research Station during 2006/07 growing season. Error bars indicate standard
error of the means

13