Show simple item record

dc.contributorLamers, Johannesen_US
dc.contributorMcDonald, Andrewen_US
dc.contributorMirzabaev, Alisheren_US
dc.contributorNazirbay Madimovic, Ibragimoven_US
dc.contributorEgamberdiev, Oybeken_US
dc.contributorRuzibaev, E.en_US
dc.contributorAkramkhanov, Akmalen_US
dc.creatorKienzler, Kirsten M.en_US
dc.date2012-01-23en_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-07-23T22:01:42Z
dc.date.available2017-07-23T22:01:42Z
dc.identifierhttps://mel.cgiar.org/reporting/download/hash/LDuQT6PKen_US
dc.identifier.citationKirsten M. Kienzler, Johannes Lamers, Andrew McDonald, Alisher Mirzabaev, Ibragimov Nazirbay Madimovic, Oybek Egamberdiev, E. Ruzibaev, Akmal Akramkhanov. (23/1/2012). Conservation agriculture in Central Asia—What do we know and where do we go from here. Field Crops Research, 132, pp. 95-105.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/7186
dc.description.abstractRainfed and irrigated agricultural systems have supported livelihoods in the five Central Asian countries (CAC) for millennia, but concerns for sustainability and efficient use of land and water resources are longstanding. During the last 50 years, resource conserving technologies were introduced in large parts of the rainfed areas while the irrigated areas were expanded largely without considering resource conservation. In more recent years, the use of conservation agriculture (CA) practices has been reported for the different agricultural production (AP) zones in CAC, albeit centering on a single AP zone or on single factors such as crop yield, implements or selected soil properties. Moreover, conflicting information exists regarding whether the current practices that are referred to as ‘CA’ can indeed be defined as such. Overall information on an application of CA-based crop management in Central Asia is incomplete. This discussion paper evaluates experimental evidence on the performance of CA and other resource conserving technologies in the three main AP zones of CAC, provides an overview of farmer adoption of production practices related to CA, and outlines technical and non-technical challenges and opportunities for the future dissemination of CA practices in each zone. Agronomic (e.g. implements, crop yields, duration, and crop residues), institutional (e.g. land tenure) and economic (e.g. short vs. long-term profitability) perspectives are considered. At present, adoption of CA-based agronomic practices in the rainfed production zone is limited to partial crop residue retention on the soil surface or sporadically zero tillage for one crop out of the rotation, and hence the use of single CA components but not the full set of CA practices. In the irrigated AP zones, CA is not commonly practiced and many of the pre-conditions that typically encourage the rapid spread of CA practices appear to be absent or limiting. Further, our analysis suggests that given the diversity of institutional, socio-economic and agro-ecological contexts, a geographically differentiated approach to CA dissemination is required in the CAC. Immediate priorities should include a shift in research paradigms (e.g. towards more participatory approaches with farmers), development of commercially available reduced and no-till seeders suitable for smaller-scale farm enterprises, and advocacy so that decision makers understand how different policies may encourage or discourage innovations that lead towards more sustainable agricultural intensification in the CAC.en_US
dc.formatDOCen_US
dc.languageenen_US
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.rightsCC-BY-NC-4.0en_US
dc.sourceField Crops Research;132,(2012) Pagination 95,105en_US
dc.subjectpermanent raised bedsen_US
dc.subjectaral sea basinen_US
dc.titleConservation agriculture in Central Asia—What do we know and where do we go from here?en_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
cg.creator.idAkramkhanov, Akmal: 0000-0002-4316-5580en_US
cg.creator.ID-typeORCIDen_US
cg.subject.agrovoczero tillageen_US
cg.subject.agrovocconventional tillageen_US
cg.subject.agrovocsustainable agricultureen_US
cg.subject.agrovocdryland ecosystemsen_US
cg.subject.agrovocwater productivityen_US
cg.contributor.centerInternational Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas - ICARDAen_US
cg.contributor.centerUniversity of Bonn, Center for Development Research - Uni-Bonn - ZEFen_US
cg.contributor.centerInternational Maize and Wheat Improvement Center - CIMMYTen_US
cg.contributor.centerUzbek Scientific Research Institute of Cotton Breeding and Seed Productionen_US
cg.contributor.centerUrgench State Universityen_US
cg.contributor.crpCGIAR Research Program on Dryland Systems - DSen_US
cg.contributor.funderInternational Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas - ICARDAen_US
cg.contributor.projectCommunication and Documentation Information Services (CODIS)en_US
cg.contributor.project-lead-instituteInternational Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas - ICARDAen_US
cg.coverage.regionCentral Asiaen_US
cg.coverage.countryKZen_US
cg.coverage.countryKGen_US
cg.coverage.countryTJen_US
cg.coverage.countryTMen_US
cg.coverage.countryUZen_US
cg.contactkirsten.kienzler@dlr.deen_US
cg.identifier.doihttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2011.12.008en_US
dc.identifier.statusOpen accessen_US
mel.impact-factor3.048en_US


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


DSpace software copyright © 2002-2016  DuraSpace
Disclaimer:
MELSpace content providers and partners accept no liability to any consequence resulting from use of the content or data made available in this repository. Users of this content assume full responsibility for compliance with all relevant national or international regulations and legislation.
Theme by 
Atmire NV