Effect of Soil Surface Formation on Yield and Yield Components of Maize (Zea mays L.

) in the North of Gadarif State, Sudan Haitham R. Kh. Elramlawi, Amir Bakheit Saeed1 and Hassan Ibrahim Mohamed2 Center of Dryland Farming Research and Studies, Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of Gadarif, Sudan. hairamlawi@yahoo.com Abstract: Two in-situ water harvesting techniques and one of each traditional and conservation agriculture practices were compared for two consecutive rainy seasons, 2004/05 and 2005/06, to study the effect of soil surface formation techniques on yield and yield components of maize in the north of Gadarif State. Sowing on contour ridges (CR), tied ridges (TR) and harrowed soil surface (HS) were compared to sowing on no-tilled soil surface (NT). Rainfall data was measured at the site, which was less than the long-term average of Gadarif town in the first and second seasons. Results indicated that the average yield of maize increased from 0.360 Mg/ha by NT to 0.417, 0.54 and 0.562 Mg/ha by HS, CR and TR respectively. The increase in yields was associated with increase of plant population (plant/m2), stem diameter (cm), plant height (cm) and dry matter weight (Mg/ha). In-situ water harvesting techniques (CR and TR) also encouraged the soil to absorb and store more water within the root zone throughout the growing season over HS and NT. Soil moisture contents during early, mid and late season were about 97.8, 82.5 and 52.3 mm respectively for NT, 114.8, 88.4 and 56.5 mm respectively for HS, 140.8, 122.1 and 72.2 mm respectively for CR and 146.1, 126.5 and 71.2 mm respectively for TR. The data suggested that simple in-situ water harvesting techniques could be used successfully to meet the high water demand of maize in the erratic and low rainfall area of the north of Gadarif State and could encourage farmers to cultivate such an important crop.

1 2

Dept. of Agric. Engn., Faculty of Agriculture, Univ. of Khartoum. Dept. of Agric. Engn., College of Agric. Studies., Univ. of Sudan for Sciences and Technology.

Introduction Sudan comprises about 2.5 million km2, extending over different climatic zones from the desert zone (0-100 mm rain) in the north to the humid zones (800-1600 mm rain) in the south (Farah et al. 1996). Out of this area, 87 million ha are cultivable land or suitable for agriculture (Buraymah 2000). Of the total cultivable land, rain-fed agriculture occupies about 15 million ha, of which 9 million ha are in the traditional agriculture (TA) while the rest in the mechanized agriculture (MA). Gadarif State lies in the eastern part of Sudan over 71,000 km2 between latitudes 12.67 and 15.75 N and longitudes 33.57 and 37.0 E where about 3 million ha are put under MA. The State stretches from north to south over three climatic zones (van der Kevie 1973) with higher summer temperatures and warm winters. Rainfall is always in the summer, and most of the rain falls within the period of May to October, when the unstable air of equatorial origin reaches far northward. The climatic zones, as described by van der Kevie and Buraymah (1976) are: - the arid zone (A), with rainfall varying from 200-400 mm, - the semi-arid zone (SA), with rainfall varying from 400-600 mm and - the dry monsoon zone (DM), with rainfall varying from 600-800 mm. The above described rainfall status, together with the suitable nature of the vast stretches of dark cracking soils (Vertisols) throughout the area make Gadarif Sate to be the main state in rainfed crop production in Sudan. Maize (zea mays L.), also known as Indian corn and simply as corn, is the third important cereal in the world after wheat and rice but more important than either as a forage crop (Babiker, 1999). In Sudan, maize is less important than sorghum and pearl millet and is normally grown as a rain-fed crop in Kordofan, Darfur and Southern States (Ahmed and Elhag, 1999). Recently, the State of Gadarif intends to adopt maize as a promising crop under local and international levels. Maize performance has not been studied extensively under rain-fed conditions in the Sudan. Rain-fed maize is usually cultivated between June to July to October or November depending on the rainfall pattern (amount and distribution) and it is likely to expect low maize yields or even failure under northern Gadarif region due to rainfall variability and uncertainty in such region, on one side, and high water demand of maize crop on the other side. Conventional tillage may not help to conserve enough water for maize production, mainly due to the nature of Vertisols with low infiltration rate and its tendency to form surface crusts which inducing runoff. High intensity rain showers also enhance unproductive water losses through runoff. Crop growth conditions may further hamper by a number of prevailing climate factors, such as low and erratic rainfall, constantly low humidity levels and high temperature during growing season (Botha et al. 2003). Simple water harvesting techniques were often overlooked as an attractive option to increase maize yields and help the local people to attain more revenue and reduce their mass immigration towards large cities. There are two major forms of water harvesting; in-situ or within-field water harvesting (ISWH) and external water harvesting (EWH). In ISWH, rainwater is collected where it falls to be used more efficiently on the same surface (often referred to as water conservation). In EWH, water is collected on one surface to be applied on another area or use (often

referred to as runoff farming/collection and storage) (Falkenmark et al. 2001). ISWH techniques include activities such as mulching, deep tillage, contour farming and ridging. The purpose behind these methods is to ensure that the rainwater is held long enough on the cropped area to ensure infiltration (Habitu and Mahoo, 1999). Ridge tillage has been defined as a method of land preparation whereby the topsoil is scraped and concentrated in a defined region to deliberately raise the seedbed above the natural terrain (Lal 1990). Crops are usually grown on the ridges in rows, with one or more rows per ridge, even though in some cases crops may be grown in the furrows to make advantage of the wetter condition of the soil under the furrow. It is an effective water management and erosion control practice when the system is established in the contour (contour ridge) and the slope of the land is less than 7 percent (Moldenhauer and Onstad 1977). Ridge tillage is very effective in conserving water in the root zone in semi-arid to sub-humid regions, particularly when ridges have cross ties in the furrows (knowing either as tied-ridging, furrow blocking or basin tillage) (Gardner et al. 1999). In clayey soil, tied-ridging is likely to reduce surface runoff and increase retained water within the field if carefully designed across the slope. Past and recent research works in Africa has shown that tied ridging often leads to little or no runoff. In Zimbabwe; Piha (1993) and Vogel (1993), in Botswana; Carter and Miller (1991) and in Burkina Faso; Hulugalle and Malton (1990) have shown similar results of more retained water and less runoff. Similar results were also obtained in USA; Krishna (1989). In addition to water harvesting technique, the use of conservation tillage measures, such as minimum till and no-till, have been tested in some developing countries to conserve soil water (Rosegrant et al., 2002). No-tillage is a method of crop production that involves no seedbed preparation other than opening the soil for the purpose of placing seed at the desired depth (SCSA 1982). Adequate quantities of residues are often required to remain above the soil surface to provide cover and to protect the soil against erosion until the canopy of the next crop is well developed (Gardner et al. 1999). The main objective of this research work is to study the effect of different soil surface formation techniques such as contour ridges, tied ridges, harrowed (conventional ploughing method) and no-tilled surfaces on the yield and yield components of maize crop under rain-fed condition, in addition to study the opportunity of increasing maize yield using in-situ water harvesting techniques.

Materials and Methods An experiment was conducted in the Demonstration Farm of the Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of Gadarif at Twawa area (Long. 35.24 E, Lat. 14.02 N and 602 m ASL) for two consecutive seasons in 2004/05 (FS) and 2005/06 (SS). Soil of the experimental site is predominantly Vertisols, deep, dark-colored clays of montmorillonitic mineralogical origin (clay content is 40-65 %) that characterized by low infiltration rate (2-3 mm/hr), low nitrogen content (0.012 %), low in organic matter (1.4 %) and high pH (8.4). Most recent observations (1975-2004) show that the area is receiving mean annual precipitation of 603 mm. The treatments involved: contour ridge (CR), tied ridge (TR), harrowed (HS) and no-tilled (NT) soil surfaces. Randomized Complete Block Design with three replicates of each treatment was adopted for the layout of the experiment and data analysis. The plot area was 25*42 m. Buffer zones were left between plots and around the experiment area to facilitate crop management operations. A 10*10 m grid map was prepared for the experiment area by using surveying equipments. A mild slope of about 0.07% dominates the area. One contour base line for each CR treatment was selected such as to divide the area into approximately two equal parts. The ridges were laid out to follow the contour base line. Ridges in both CR and TR treatments were constructed manually of 0.8 m space. HS treatment was done using a wide level disc harrow (WLD) connected to Massy Ferguson tractor of 75 HP. Soil surface of NT treatment was covered with a mulch (residues of previous cropsorghum) of about 0.2 Mg/ha dry matter without any formation. Row spacing used in NT treatment was similar to that used in CR and TR treatments. Giza-2 maize variety (cultivars) was sowing manually to study its performance under different treatments of soil surface formation. The seed rate was three seeds per hole (20 cm spacing) thinned later during vegetative stage to two plants per hole. A basal dose of nitrogen fertilizer was applied at sowing in both seasons, at a rate of 46.8 kg/ha. Weeding was done manually in both seasons. Three plants, after sixty days of flowering, were randomly selected from each plot for measuring plant height (cm) from the base of the stem to the tip of the youngest leaf, and then the arithmetic mean was calculated for each treatment. At the end of each season, three plants were randomly selected from each plot and stem diameter was measured by means of vernier at the middle of the stems. A quadrate of 1*1 m was tossed in each plot, and the plant enclosed inside were counted to give the number of plants / m2. These plants were cut, tied in bundles and left to dry for ten days in the sun and were then weighed to give the air-dry yield. Water stored in each of the four treatments was determined from the depth (mm) of water stored in the top 0.8 meter soil depth (assumed to the depth of the root zone in this type of heavy soil). The soil water stored (%) in each 0.2 m incremental depth down to 0.8 m was determined gravimetrically. It was then converted to water depth (mm) by multiplying by the bulk density values measured by the core sampler methods as described by Black (1965). Three periods of soil moisture content measurements (viz: at early season, mid season and late season) were conducted in

both growing seasons. Analysis of variance appropriate for complete randomized block design was applied by adopting IRRISTAT software (IRRISTAT, 2003).

Results Monthly amount of rainfall The data about the amounts of monthly rainfall (mm) measured within the two rainy seasons are presented in Fig. 1. Total annual rainfall was 545.1 and 516.5 mm for the FS and SS respectively, which less than the long-term average of Gadarif town (603 mm). Soil moisture content (SMC) Soil moisture content of the soil profile (80 cm) was measured at three periods, i.e. at early season (P1), mid season (P2) and late season (P3). The effects of soil surface formation treatments on SMC at P1, P2 and P3 are shown in Table 1, which displays LSD at 0.05 level between the mean of the treatments during the first (2004/2005) and second (2005/2006) season. The apparent higher SMC in the FS was only due to rainfall variability through the growing season. In both growing seasons at all measurement periods, the results obtained showed highly significant (P0.01) difference in SMC between treatments. In-situ water harvesting treatments (TR and CR) recorded the highest SMC values in both seasons and at any measurement period and no significant (P>0.05) difference between them was perceived. Moreover, HS and ZT recorded the lowest SMC values in both seasons and at any measurement period and no significant (P>0.05) difference between them was perceived except in SS at P1. SMC at P1 In FS and SS, SMC advantage above ZT were about: 14.3% and 20.8% respectively for HS, 47.3% and 51.7% respectively for TR, and 43.1% and 44.9% respectively for CR. TR and CR increased SMC in the root zone over HS by about 28.9% and 25.2 % respectively in FS and by about 25.6% and 20.0% respectively in SS. SMC under TR increased by about 3.0% and 4.6% over CR in FS and SS respectively. 1. SMC at P2 In FS and SS, SMC advantage above ZT were about: 2.7% and 12.2% respectively for HS, 43.7% and 64.4% respectively for TR, and 49.4% and 56.3% respectively for CR. TR and CR increased SMC in the root zone over HS by about 39.8% and 45.4% respectively in FS and by about 46.6% and 39.4% respectively in SS. In FS, SMC under CR increased by about 4.0% over TR, while in SS, TR increased SMC by about 5.2% over CR. 2. SMC at P3

In FS and SS, SMC advantage above ZT were about: 9.3% and 6.6% respectively for HS, 45.0% and 27.2% respectively for TR, and 45.5% and 30.4% respectively for CR. TR and CR increased SMC in the root zone over HS by about 32.6% and 33.1% respectively in FS and by about 19.3% and 22.3% respectively in SS. In FS and SS, SMC under CR increased by about 0.3% and 2.5% respectively over TR. Yield and yield components of maze crop The effects of soil surface formation treatments on plant population (plant/m2), stem diameter (cm), plant height (cm), dry yield (Mg/ha) and yield (Mg/ha) are shown in Table 2, which displays LSD at 0.05 level between the mean of the treatments during the first (2004/2005) and second (2005/2006) season. In both growing seasons, the results obtained showed significant (P 0.05) difference in yield and yield components of maize crop between treatments. In-situ water harvesting treatments (TR and CR) recorded the highest values of yield and yield components in both seasons, while that of HS and ZT were the lowest. At most, there is no significant (P>0.05) difference between TR and CR in both seasons. 1. Plant population (PP) In both seasons there was no significant (P>0.05) difference between NT and HS, HS and CR or TR and CR. PP advantage above ZT in FS and SS were about 14% and 10.3% respectively for HS, 60% and 48.2% respectively for TR, and 42.9% and 34.4% respectively for CR. Moreover, TR and CR increased PP over HS by about 40.4% and 25.3% respectively in FS and by about 34.4% and 21.8% respectively in SS. TR also increased PP by about 12.0% and 10.2% over CR in FS and SS respectively. 2. Stem Diameter (SD) In both seasons there was a highly significant (P 0.01) difference between treatments. In FS there was a significant (P 0.05) difference between NT and other treatments and between HS and in-situ water harvesting treatments, but as usual, there was no significant (P>0.05) difference between TR and CR. In SS no significant (P>0.05) difference was shown either between NT and HS or TR and CR, but there was a significant (P 0.05) difference between ZT and HS on one hand and TR and CR on the other. In FS and SS, SD advantage above ZT were about 10.0% and 5.8% respectively for HS, 36.2% and 35.8% respectively for TR, and 33.1% and 27.5% respectively for CR. Moreover, TR and CR increased SD over HS by about 23.8% and 21.0% respectively in FS and by about 28.4% and 20.5% respectively in SS. TR also increased SD by about 2.3% and 6.5% over CR in FS and SS respectively. 3. Plant height (PH)

In FS and SS, there was significant (P 0.05) and highly significant (P 0.01) difference between treatments. In both seasons, no significant (P>0.05) difference was shown either between NT and HS or TR and CR, but there was a significant (P 0.05) difference between ZT and HS on one hand and TR and CR on the other. PH advantage above ZT in FS and SS were about: 11.0% and 3.8% respectively for HS, 36.0% and 25.6% respectively for TR, and 33.9% and 24.1% respectively for CR. Moreover, TR and CR increased PH over HS by about 22.5% and 20.6% respectively in FS and by about 20.9% and 19.5% respectively in SS. TR also increased PH by about 1.6% and 1.2% over CR in FS and SS respectively. Dry Matter (DM) In FS and SS, there was highly significant (P 0.01) and significant (P 0.05) difference respectively between treatments. In FS no significant (P>0.05) difference was shown either between NT and HS or TR and CR, but there was a significant (P 0.05) difference between ZT and HS on one hand and TR and CR on the other. DM advantage above ZT in FS and SS were about: 7.2% and 21.4% respectively for HS, 34.9% and 42.7% respectively for TR, and 25.3% and 31.2% respectively for CR. Moreover, TR and CR increased DM over HS by about 25.8% and 16.9% respectively in FS and by about 17.5% and 8.1% respectively in SS. TR also increased DM by about 7.6% and 8.7% over CR in FS and SS respectively. 4. Maize Yield (MY) In FS and SS, there was highly significant (P 0.01) between treatments. In FS, no significant (P>0.05) difference was shown either between NT and HS or TR and CR, but there was a significant (P 0.05) difference between ZT and HS on one hand and TR and CR on the other. In SS, there was a significant (P 0.05) difference between NT and other treatments and between HS and in-situ water harvesting treatments, but there was no significant (P>0.05) difference between TR and CR. MY advantage above ZT in FS and SS were about: 17.7% and 13.9% respectively for HS, 58.3% and 53.8% respectively for TR, and 53.4% and 46.5% respectively for CR. Moreover, TR and CR increased MY over HS by about 34.5% and 30.3% respectively in FS and by about 35.1% and 28.6% respectively in SS. TR also increased MY by about 3.2% and 5.0% over CR in FS and SS respectively.

Discussion The rapid entry of rainfall water through heavy (massive) and deep cracks in ZT treatments leads to low soil moisture content in the root zone. On heavy cracking soil under rainfed conditions in Sudan, Saeed and Eissa (2002) found a high average cracking percentage of about 56.7% under no-tillage treatment. One reason frequently given for tillage is that it loosens the soil and improves its tilth. Therefore, by inference, no-tillage should be detrimental to good tilth, resulting in a dense soil, and consequently reduce water infiltration and crop yields (Unger, 1984). Formation of soil crusting, results mainly from soil dispersion and re-orientation of soil particles due to raindrop impact, reduced soil infiltration through the soil. Since, large part of the previous crop (sorghum) was either removed for building, fencing or household fuel purposes or grazed by livestock during the dry season, a low level of mulch (around 0.2 Mg/ha) dry matter was used in the NT treatments. Mulch may reduce the impact of raindrops and retard overland flow (Lal, 1974). The inadequate amount of residues is considered as one of the major constraints to adoption of no-tillage practice in the semi-arid zones (Unger et al. 1991). Buraymah (1977) identified a compaction layer (15-20 cm below the plow layer) and structure deterioration in soil of Gadarif. He attributed such negative findings on agricultural production to the practice of mono-cropping (sorghum), the absence of proper crop rotation and using of one kind of plow (wide level disk harrow). Due to the existing of compacted layer, both NT and HS failed to store enough rainwater in the root zone. Higher soil moisture content under HS than NT can be attributed to the effect of tillage by increasing soil surface roughness, which may increase temporary surface water storage, and breaking soil crusts, which may facilitate infiltration of water that would be lost as surface runoff. On the other side, ploughing in biomass poor hot tropical areas leads to accelerated oxidation of organic matter, thereby reducing water holding capacities of the soil (Johnson, 1950), decreasing soil aggregate stability (Kemper and Koch, 1966) and results in deterioration of soil quality (Johnston et al. 1943). Plough land has, also, higher evaporation water losses, due to increased surface exposed to the atmosphere (Falkenmark et al, 2001). In-situ water harvesting techniques, encourage more water to be stored in the root zone by trapping water between the furrows and holding long enough on the soil surface that ensure infiltration, which otherwise be lost as surface runoff. The overland flow of water is mostly governed by gravity force when soil slope is more than zero and/or pressure head difference when there is zero slope (Adeeb, 1984). In in-situ water harvesting treatments, ridges reduced or eliminated down-slop movement of water by increasing surface roughness, unless overtopping had occurred. In CR, the slope along furrows is almost zero and the movement of lateral runoff would be slow down which increased infiltration opportunity time and thus improved water infiltration through the soil surface and increased water availability in the root zone. Also, in TR, building ties across furrows increased surface roughness, reduced lateral movement of runoff water, which increased infiltration opportunity time, and thus improved water infiltration through the soil surface and eventually increased water availability in the root zone. Burwell et al. (1966) evaluated the effects of soil porosity and surface roughness resulting from several

tillage methods on the infiltration of simulated rainfall. They concluded that, cumulative infiltration before initial runoff was more closely related to surface roughness than to total pore space. As mentioned above, the occurrence of compacted layer under ploughing depth couldnt be loosen under NT and HS which hinders emergence, initial development and root growth. Also, a high population weeds were noticed under NT treatment, which was difficult to control manually, had adverse effects on the yield and yield components of maize crop. This agrees with the findings of Moody (1974), who attributed a reduction in maize yield of about 46% to the inadequate weeds control. Based on SMC results, more water was available for crop growth under HS than ZT, which had a positive effect on yield and yield components of maize crop. HS also, buried residues to control the proliferation pathogens and insects pest that resided in and/or lived on the residues during the off-season period of crop production. Hakimi and Kachru (1976) evaluated the effects of tillage type and depth on barely grain yields on a calcareous silty clay soil at Shiraz, Iran. A no-tillage treatment was also included in the study and resulted in the lowest average yield. The low yield due to no-tillage was attributed to weeds, where no herbicide was applied. Highest yields were obtained with the field cultivator treatment, and were attributed to better water infiltration, low soil bulk density, more extensive root growth and lower weed population as compared to other treatments. Many other researchers found the same results (Hadas et al. 1980, Mahto and Sinha, 1980 and Shaalan et al. 1977). These results emphasize the tremendous importance of effective weed control and maintenance of surface residues to conserve water and obtain favourable crop yields with no-tillage in semi-arid regions. Sowing on the ridges had the effect of raising the crops rooting zone above the compacted layer. This resulted in better germination and deep root growth than HS and ZT treatments. On the other hand, water use by plants may essentially depend on the amount of water stored in the soil. Water uptake during dry period is therefore greater and more uniform over time with TR and CR than with HS and NT.

Conclusions The study showed the potential advantages of in-situ water harvesting for semi-arid zones and in particular for Northern Gadarif, Sudan. Based on the findings of this study the following conclusions can be summarized as follows: 1. In-situ water harvesting techniques improved soil moisture stored within the root zone as compared to no-tillage and harrowed soil resulting in higher fresh and dry yield of maize. 2. No-tillage technique should not be applied under Gadarif conditions without adequate amount of mulch to cover the soil surface and chemical weeds control. Recommendations The distance between furrows, furrow height and ridges width in TR and CR as well as the distance between ties in TR, should be intensively study to determine the best ratio of run-on to run-off area. The possibility of growing more than one row per ridge and growing crop in the furrow to take the advantage of the wetter conditions of the soil under the furrows.

Table 1. Soil moisture content (mm/80 cm) as affected by soil surface formation treatments. Soil surface formation Techniques NT HS TR CR LSD 0.05 NT HS TR CR LSD 0.05
-

Period of measurements Early Season Mid season Late season 2004/05 season 100.8a** 88.5a** 52.27a** 115.2a 90.93a 57.13a 148.47b 127.13b 75.77b 144.2b 132.23b 76.03b 22.57 13.81 7.82 2005/06 season 94.8** 76.53a** 52.37a** 114.47 85.83a 55.83a 143.72a 125.83b 66.63b 137.4a 111.96b 68.3b 15.8 15.82 7.382

LSD = least significant difference. *,** = means are significant at P 0.05 and P 0.01, respectively. Means with the same letter within a column are not significantly different at P 0.05.

Table 2. Plant population, stem diameter, plant height, dry yield and yield as affected by soil surface formation treatments. Soil surface Yield and yield components form Plant Stem Plant height Dry yield ation population diameter (cm) (Mg/ha) Tech (plant/m2) (cm) niqu es 2004/05 season NT 11.67a* 1.30** 107.20a* 1.107a** HS 13.3ab 1.43 119.03a 1.187a TR 18.67c 1.77a 145.80b 1.493b CR 16.67bc 1.73a 143.57b 1.387b LSD 0.05 4.12 0.11 23.464 0.165 2005/06 season NT 9.67a* 1.20a** 105.87a** 0.813a* HS 10.67ab 1.27a 109.93a 0.987ab TR 14.33c 1.63b 132.93b 1.160b CR 13.0bc 1.53b 131.37b 1.067b LSD 0.05 3.03 0.221 17.62 0.194
-

Yield (Mg/ha)

0.367a** 0.432a 0.581b 0.563b 0.087 0.353** 0.402 0.543a 0.517a 0.032

LSD = least significant difference. *,** = means are significant at P 0.05 and P 0.01, respectively. Means with the same letter within a column are not significantly different at P 0.05.

300 250 Total rainfall 200 150 ( mm 100 50 0 Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Month Fig. 1: Monthly total rainfall for the two rainy seasons 2004/05 2005/06

References Adeeb, A. M. (1984). Zero-inertia model for design and management of graded furrow irrigation. Ph. D. Dissertation, Dept. of Agric. and Chem. Engn., Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. Ahmed, E.A. and Elhag, H.A. (1999). Effect of Watering Intervals on Yield and Yield Components of Two Maize (Zea mays L.) Cultivars Grown in Summer and Winter. University of Khartoum Journal Agricultural Science 7(1), 20-33. Babiker, E.A. (1999). Effect of Sowing Date and Plant Density on Growth and Yield of Irrigated Maize (Zea mays L.) at Rahad (Sudan). University of Khartoum Journal Agricultural Science 7(1), 1-19. Blake, G.R. (1965). Soil Bulk Density. In: Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1. C.A. Black, D.D. Evans, L.E. Ensminger, J.L. White and F.E. Clark (eds). No. 9 in the Series Agronomy. American Society of Agronomy, Inc. Madison, Wisconsin, U.S.A. Botha, J.J., Van Rensburg, L.D., Anderson, J.J. Kundhlande, G., Groenewald, D.C. and Macheli, M., 2003. application of in-field rainwater harvesting in rural villages in semi-arid areas of South Africa. Water Conservation Technologies for Sustainable Dryland Agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa (WCT). Bloemfontein, South Africa. Buraymah, I.M. (2000). The stategy of the agricultural Research Corporation (ARC) for combating desertification and land degradation in Sudan. Proceedings of the Workshop on the Role of ARC on Combating Desertification and Land Degradation in Sudan, 18th Sept. Khartoum, Sudan. Burwell, R. E.; Allmaras, R. R. and Sloneker, L.L. (1966). Structural alteration of soil surface by tillage and rainfall. J. Soil Water Conserv. 21: 61-63. Carter, D. C. and Miller, S. (1991). Three years experience with on-farm macrocatchment water harvesting system in Botswana. Agric. Water Management, 19: 191-203. Falkenmark, M; Fox, P; Persson, G. and Rockstrm, J. (2001). Water harvesting for upgrading of rainfed agriculture - problem analysis and research needs. Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI), Stockholm, Sweden, pp 94. Farah, S.M.; Ali A. and Inanaga S. (1996). The role of climate and cultural practices on land degradation and desertification with reference to rainfed agriculture in Sudan. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Desert Development, Texas Tech. Univ. Aug. 12-17 1996. pp. 277-291. Gardner, C. M. K.; Laryea, K. B. and Unger, P. W. (1999). Soil physical constraints to plant growth and crop production. Land and Water Development Division, FAO, Rome, pp: 96. Habitu, N. and Mahoo, H. (1999). Rainwater harvesting technologies for agricultural production: A case for Dodoma, Tanzania. In: conservation tillage with animal traction. ed Kambutho, P. G. and Simalenga, T. E. Harare, Zimbabwe: A resource book of Animal Traction Network for Eastern and Southern Africa (ATNESA) . Hadas, A.; Wolf, D. and Stibbe, E. (1980). Tillage practices and crop response analyses of agro-ecosystem. Agro-Ecosystem, 6: 235-248.

Hakimi, A. H. and Kachru, R. P. (1976). Response of barely crop to different tillage treatments on calcareous soil. J. Agric. Engn. Res. 21: 399-403. Hulugalle, N. R. and Malton, P.J. 1990. effects of rock bunds and tied ridges on soil water content and soil properties in the Sudan Savannah of Burkina Faso. Tropical Agric., 67(2): 149-153. IRRISTAT (2003). Biometrics and Bioiformatics Unit, International Rice Research Institute. Johnson, W. C. (1950). Stubble mulch farming on wheatlands of the Southern High Plains, US Dept. Agric. Circ. 860. US Govt. Print. Office, Washington DC. Johnston, J. R.; Browning, G.M. and Russell, M.B. (1943). The effect of cropping practices on aggregation, organic matter control and loss of soil in the Marshall silt loam. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 7:105-107. Kemper, W.D. and Koch, E.J. (1966). Aggregate stability of soils from Western United States and Canada - Measurement procedure, correlations with soil constituents. US Dept. Agric. Tech. Bull. 1355. US Govt. Print. Office, Washington DC. Krishna, J.H. (1989). Modeling the effects of tied-ridging on water conservation and crop yields. Agric. Water Management, 16: 87-95. Lal, R. (1974). Soil erosion and shifting agriculture. In: Shifting Cultivation and Soil Conservation in Africa. FAO Soils Bull. 24, FAO, Rome, pp. 48-71. Lal, R. (1990). Ridge-tillage. Soil Tillage Res. 18: 107-111. Mahto, D. N. and Sinha, M. P. (1980). Effect of tillage practices on weed control and yield of maize. Indian J. Agron. 25: 146-148. Moldenhauer, W. C. and Onstah, C. A. (1977). Engineering practices to control erosion. In Soil Conservation and Management in the Humid Tropics. eds. Greenland, D. J. and Lal, R. John Wiley, Chichester. pp.: 87-92. Moody, K. (1974). Weeds and shifting cultivation. In: Shifting Cultivation and Soil Conservation in Africa. FAO Soils Bull. 24, FAO, Rome, pp: 155-166. Piha, M.I. (1993). Optimizing fertilizer use and practical rainfall capture in a semiarid environment with variable rainfall. Exp. Agric., 29: 405-415. Rosegrant, M.; Cai, X.; Cline, S. and Nakagawa, N. (2002). The Role of Rainfed Agriculture in the Future of Global Food Production. EPTD Discussion Paper No. 90. Environmental and Production Technology Division, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D. C. 20006 U.S.A, pp 105. Saeed, A.B. and Eissa, H.E. (2002). Influence of Tillage on Some Properties of Heavy Cracking Clay Soils and Sorghum Yield in Mechanized Rainfed Agriculture. University of Khartoum Journal Agricultural Science 10(2), 267-276. SCSA (Soil Conservation Society of America). (1982). Resource Conservation Glossary. Soil Conserv. Soc. Am. Ankeny, IA. Shaalan, M. I.; Chaudhry, M. S. and Sorour, F. A. (1977). The effect of tillage and planting methods on growth, weed population, and yield in semi-dwarf wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Libyan J. Agric. 6 (part 1): 55-67. Unger, P. W. (1984). Tillage systems for soil and water conservation. FAO Soils Bull. 54, FAO, Rome, 278 pp.

Unger, P. W. (1991). Organic matter, nutrient and pH distribution in no-tillage and conventional tillage semi-arid soils. Agron. J. 83:186-189. van der Kevie (1973). Climatic Zones in Sudan. Soil Survey Administration, Wad Medani, Sudan. van der Kevie and Buraymah, I.M. (1976). Exploratory Soil Survey of Kassala Province. Soil Survey Administration, Wad Medani, Sudan. Vogel, H. (1993). Tillage effects on maize yield, rooting depth and soil water content on sandy soils in Zimbabwe. Field Crops Res., 33: 367-384.