Influence of farmers’ socio-economic characteristics on nutrient flow and implications for system sustainability in smallholdings: a review

1 Introduction

1.1 Background information

The variety of natural resources and climate conditions found in smallholding systems has resulted in a wide range of land use systems (1). Consequently, farming systems vary greatly depending on socioeconomic and agro-ecological environments, which ultimately affect system management practices in a given community (2–4). Various farming systems exist in smallholder settings in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) based on cropping systems. Perennial crops, crop-livestock mixed farming, maize-mixed farming, root and tuber farming, and cereal-root crops are among the major farming systems in SSA (1, 4). However, crop-livestock mixed farming is the most common farming system for smallholders who produce for subsistence, accounting for roughly two-thirds of smallholder farmers’ livelihoods in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) (5). Crop-livestock mixed farming is preferred due to the interdependence of livestock and crops, which results in nutrient recycling within the system (6).

The challenge of nutrient cycling in mixed crop-livestock farming is that, quantities of animal manure produced within farmsteads in SSA are smaller due to the small number of livestock kept per household, unlike in developed countries where manure is considered a problematic waste (7). As a result, smallholder farmers are forced to use little manure, which does not meet nutrition crop requirements; thus, crop production in this region relies heavily on natural soil fertility (8, 9). It is estimated that 60–80% of household income is generated at the expense of natural soil fertility (10). Reports show that over the last three decades, nutrient mining from arable lands in SSA has been estimated to be 660, 75, and 450 kg ha^-1 yr^-1 of N, P, and K, respectively (11). Consequently, these practices contribute to land degradation through nutrient mining, threatening the sustainability of existing farming systems (12). Understanding the interaction between farmers’ socioeconomic attributes of soil fertility management and soil nutrient depletion is critical in developing appropriate approaches to address soil fertility problems (13–15). Designing biophysical nutrient management without consideration of socioeconomic factors is likely to yield low adoption, despite being technically sound (14). In the past, soil management interventions were derived from less participatory, top-down policies and thus did not work because they appeared to interfere with farmers’ decision-making (16). Adoption of nutrient management is determined by accessibility and affordability of the technology and the respective requirements for input, materials (17) and labor. To that end, smallholder farmers in SSA often respond to these challenges in various alternative ways by using easily available resources within their environment, such as animal manure, mulching, or intercropping (18). However, due to the insufficient quantity and often low quality of animal manure produced within farmsteads, their contribution to improving soil fertility is negligible (19, 20).

The majority of smallholder farmers are still struggling to increase crop production in order to feed more people, a result of the high population growth rate (21, 22). However, reaching potential yields has remained a challenge due to smallholder farmers’ reliance on rain-fed agriculture, insufficient soil nutrient supply, use of low-yielding varieties, and a lack of mechanization (3, 14). According to Aschonitis et al. (23), the introduction of the “green revolution” in the 1960s greatly improved crop yields ranging from 3 to 5 MT ha^-1 in Asia and China, respectively, to 10 MT in North America, Europe, and Japan through the use of improved crop varieties, fertilizers, pesticides, and advanced farm machinery. The green revolution was not realized in developing countries, leaving Africa with the lowest yield at around 1.5 MT ha^-1 (24), due to the inaccessibility and high cost of the agricultural technologies. Nonetheless, previous research findings, such as those by Omuto and Vargas (25) and Takele et al. (14), revealed that agricultural technological change, such as the use of advanced machinery, high yielding varieties, fertilizers, and pesticides, has been linked to land degradation in many arable lands, including erosion, salinity, and soil nutrient depletion.

1.2 Rationale of the review

Global population growth is expected to reach 9.7 billion people by 2050, with African population growth expected to reach 2.5 billion in 2050, up from 1.3 billion in 2020, and the SSA population expected to reach 3.1 billion by 2100, up from around 1.24 billion today (3). With these population projections, the governments, including those in the SSA region, have to take critical actions to be able to feed the growing population by addressing the rapid decline in soil fertility and increased food constraints (3). It is, therefore, important that global and/or regional food production be increased through holistic strategies to meet the demand of the growing population. While research centers have developed many promising systems of soil amendment techniques for nutrient enrichment, the majority of them rely on mono-disciplinary approaches with a focus on the biophysical aspects (26–29), with little consideration of the socio-economic aspects. Integrating biophysical and socio-economic disciplines could address the problem of soil nutrient depletion more holistically (29). It all starts, nevertheless, with estimating nutrient budgets, and this has been gaining popularity among the researchers (30). A nutrient budget can be viewed as a reliable indicator for nutrient mining and related land degradation, allowing for improved soil nutrient management. The nutrient budget was defined by Bindraban et al. (31) as the difference between the system’s nutrient inputs and outputs within predefined spatial-temporal boundaries. The difference is calculated based on the nutrient stocks present within the top 30 cm of the soil profile (32) and the depth where most of the crop roots are active (33).

There are several modes available for better evaluation of nutrient flow and budgets and the limitations of soil nutrient content in SSA. A system for quantitative evaluation of the fertility in tropical soil (QUEFS), for example, was designed to assess the efficacy of N, P, and K ratios during fertilizer application (34). Other models, like NuMass, were developed to diagnose soil fertility in terms of N, P, and soil acidity (35). However, the NUTMON methodology, introduced in 1990 by Stoorvogel and Smallings, mainly focused on nutrient flow and balance by indicating the nutrient inputs and outputs of a certain land use and farming system (36–38). Because it combines biophysical and socioeconomic approaches to soil fertility management, the NUTMON concept has been opened to a wide range of studies related to nutrient budget and flow (30). NUTMON is essentially a decision support model that has been modified from the Nutrient Balance Model (NUTBAL), which was previously developed to generate quantitative nutrient balances for the major macronutrients (N, P and K) for African land use systems (33). NUTMON, goes beyond NUTBAL by including, in addition to nutrient balance, changes in land use, farm activities, and economic analysis to generate qualitative and quantitative nutrient stock and flows data within and outside the farm (29, 39–41). The economic analysis tool was included in order to estimate the farm’s economic performance (33, 42). As a result of the integration of biophysical and economic performance, farmers and researchers can make recommendations for alternative methods of implementing Integrated Nutrient Management (INM) while keeping the underlying constraints in mind.

The NUTMON methodology can be used by researchers and farmers to assess the environmental and financial sustainability of tropical farming systems (11, 29). Other research has shown that NUTMON can be used to assess the degree of nutrient mining in an agro-ecosystem and the effects of the various nutrient management strategies on soil nutrient stocks (32, 33). NUTMON categorizes inputs into five groups (N1 to N5): incoming nutrients from fertilizers (mineral and organic), wet and dry deposition, nitrogen fixation, and sedimentation. Harvested products (grain, tubers, or animal products), crop residues, leaching beyond the rooting zone, gaseous N and S losses (denitrification, valorization, and burning), and erosion are the five output categories (OUT1–OUT5) (16, 40, 43). As shown in Figure 1, a farm-level NUTMON consists of a structured questionnaire, a data base, and two statistical models: one for calculating nutrient flows (NUTCAL-model) and the other for calculating economic performance (ECCAL-model) (33).

FIGURE 1

Figure 1 A schematic representation of a farm NUTMON (Source: 33).

Because there have been numerous studies on NUTMON in SSA and elsewhere, this review intends to investigate the sustainability of smallholder farming systems in terms of nutrient flow and balance by utilizing previous studies on nutrient monitoring (NUTMON) in smallholder farming system soils. However, due to inconclusive results from diverse settings of smallholder farmers worldwide, this review will only focus on Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) as a representative of other areas with extensive nutrient mining and low-resource farming systems. As a result, this paper intends to; (i) examine biophysical attributes that influence soil fertility management in SSA smallholder farming systems, (ii) provide narrations on how socio-economic categories affect farming systems and nutrient flow and balance., (iii) Identifying existing smallholder farming systems and their soil nutrient balance status (iv) Identifying the nutrient monitoring (NUTMON) research gap in SSA.

2 Methodology used in gathering information

The goal of this review was to look at the characteristics of smallholder farming systems in terms of nutrient flow and balance in NUTMON studies in SSA soils. During the systematic search of the materials, a PRISMA approach was used, with ScienceDirect and Google Scholar serving as search engines. The keywords were “NUTMON” AND “sub-Saharan Africa” AND “Farming systems” with the link of “nutrient balance” AND “Socio-economic”. Numerous articles were drawn from the internet, as shown in Figure 2. The search was limited to the last three decades, i.e., from 1990 to 2022 (Table 1). Details on literature relevance using quality assessment, exclusion, and inclusion criteria are shown in Figure 2. At the end, 43 articles were considered for this review based on the selection criteria. Numerous theories and knowledge on the socioeconomics of smallholder farmers, farming systems, and soil nutrient budgets were discussed in these sources. Therefore, the results of soil fertility management strategies and the NUTMON concept were reviewed to gain an understanding of the successes and challenges of soil fertility management.

FIGURE 2

Figure 2 A schematic literature search based on PRISMA in acquisition of appropriate articles for this review.

TABLE 1

Table 1 Chronological trend of nutrient flow and budgets studies in SSA farming systems.

3 Findings from the explored literature

The review consisted eight five (85) documents which met the inclusion criteria. However, of the 85 documents 72 were peer reviewed journal articles, 4 were proceedings, 4 Master thesis, and 5 PhD thesis. Kenya and Ethiopia are the most studied countries on nutrient flow and balances by, 28 and 22 documents, respectively (Table 1). Other countries including Mali, Tanzania, Burkina Faso, Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda, Madagascar, Ivory Coast, Benin, and Mozambique which consisted 1 to 5 articles (Table 1). This results is in line with the report by (30) that more than one-third of research in nutrient balances documented in SSA are done in Kenya. Furthermore, results show that the majority of studies were conducted in the 2000s and 2010s (Table 1).

3.1 Focus of this review article

The emphasis of this review is on smallholders’ characteristics and soil nutrient management in SSA. Soil fertility, being the most important indicator that determines the capacity of the soil to produce crops, is controlled by many factors ranging from biophysical (110) to socio-economic (14, 106). In the past, smallholder farmers in SSA used to cultivate land by moving from one place to another (the practice is known as shifting cultivation); thus, farms were left fallow to rejuvenate their fertility (9, 111). Clearly, the aforementioned practice is no longer appropriate due to increased population, which has resulted in pressure on agricultural lands (112, 113). The current smallholder farming systems in SSA are comprised of homestead farms (home gardens), which are typically small pieces of land (1 acre), and distant farms, which are relatively large (> 1 acre but less than 5 acres) (3, 114). We discussed soil fertility management by smallholder farmers in terms of biophysical and socioeconomic attributes in this section.

3.1.1 Attributes related to biophysical aspects on soil fertility management

Historically, the SSA experienced moderate growth in agricultural production between the 1960s and 1970s, but the trend later began to decline, making it the least developed region in comparison to the developed world (115). Factors attributed to the decline in crop production are not other than pests and diseases, climate change (too much or too little rainfall), and most importantly, land degradation, which ultimately affects the quality of soils (104). Soil fertility management, from a biophysical standpoint, includes managing soil nutrients at the farm level as well as improving soil condition (physicochemical and biological attributes) for improved plant production (116, 117). Since the introduction of the green revolution in the 1960s, agricultural scientists have been coming up with a vast range of soil fertility management technologies for the purpose of combating world hunger (118, 119). Ofori and Amoakohene (116) highlighted varieties of technologies, including the use of (i) inorganic fertilizers alone, (ii) organic inputs together with inorganic fertilizers, (iii) organic inputs alone (organic farming), and (iv) Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM) practices (currently highly promoted).

In SSA, smallholder farmers engage in a variety of farming systems with different management practices, yet the sustainability of these systems is at stake (3, 79). The current review found that, with the exception of plot-level experimental studies, almost all (90%) studies in smallholder farming systems rely on organic inputs, specifically farm yard manure and crop residues, with little or no inorganic fertilizers (5, 85, 105). A similar observation is reported by Masso et al. (120), who find that more than 65% of smallholder farmers in developing countries do not use inorganic fertilizers in their farming systems. Although animal manure has been reported as the main source of nutrient inputs in most smallholder fields, these sources are constrained by limited access and poor quality (24, 105). Studies demonstrate that the amount and quality of manure have been affected by various factors, but most importantly poor animal nutrition, a poor livestock keeping system, and poor manure handling (121). For example, a study by Tittonel (2015) on diversity in soil fertility management on smallholder farms in western Kenya found that only 38% of N, 38% of P, and 34% of K remained in the manure after storage.

In SSA, fertilizer use is definitely very low compared to the developed world (122). Reports have shown that the average fertilizer use on crop land is 135 kgha^-1 year^-1 in developed countries, whereas SSA exhibits the lowest rate of less than 15 kg ha^-1 year^-1 (123, 124). The 2006 Abuja Fertilizer Declaration estimated that by 2015 the fertilizer use in SSA could be 50 kg ha^-1 of N, P, and K (123). Generally, there are some efforts to increase fertilizer use in SSA countries, yet the pace is too slow to meet the target, with an average of 5 kg in 1990 and 10 kg in 2008 (122). Some limitations on the use of inorganic fertilizers have been associated with limited access, high prices, poor extension services, and inappropriate fertilizer recommendations due to little research on fertilizer use (14, 124–126).

In view of the above information, livestock plays a vital role in nutrient cycling in crop-livestock-based farming systems (5). However, there is an ongoing debate by environmentalists that livestock contribute about 14.5% of all emitted anthropogenic greenhouse gasses (nitrous oxide and methane), threatening global climatic conditions (5). The question remains: “Should we abandon the systems?” Based on these varying situations of soil nutrient management among smallholder farmers’ fields, integrated soil fertility management (ISFM) could serve the purpose of improving soil fertility in smallholder farming systems in SSA. The biophysical soil fertility management approach is well discussed in almost all the reviewed articles. However, the generic nature of scientific approaches when it comes to soil fertility management failed to incorporate indigenous knowledge, resulting in poor adoption of the recommended soil fertility management technologies (118).

3.1.2 Socio-economic attributes on soil fertility management

Agriculture is the primary source of income for the majority of people in most developing countries, SSA in particular, accounting for more than 70% of smallholder farmers’ livelihoods, with 60% concentrated in rural areas (127–130). Low crop yields, which lead to food insecurity, are the most significant constraint for smallholder farmers in SSA (131, 132), negatively affecting their economic status. Among other things, socioeconomic factors that influence farmers’ ability to adopt soil fertility management technologies threaten existing smallholder farming systems (78, 85, 105, 113). This review found significant evidence that socioeconomic factors influence farmers’ decisions to adopt proposed soil management technologies (133). Inorganic fertilizers, for example, appear to be the most widely adopted among the various introduced soil fertility management technologies by many farmers in developed countries due to their immediate effect. However, this is not the case in developing countries, including SSA, due to the prohibitively high cost of inorganic fertilizers, which the majority of smallholder farmers cannot afford (17). Previous research, for example, by Zingore et al. (62) and Kathuku et al. (56), shows that soil nutrient management varies significantly across socioeconomic classes, ranging from insufficient inputs (typically poor resource farmers) to adequate and excessive inputs (rich farmers). The direct socio-economic factors that influence soil nutrient flow are management practices and levels of crop-livestock interaction, and the level of importation and exportation of soil nutrients through crop and livestock product sales and purchases (58, 101). However, Stewart et al. (24) and Giller et al. (3) reported that land ownership or tenure, access to labor, household income and endowments, gender equity, and access to market services were other socioeconomic factors that constrained most smallholder farmers’ soil fertility management decisions.

Socioeconomic factors impede the adoption of biophysical soil management technologies among farmers in SSA (29, 129). For instance, the deteriorating relative price relations between farm inputs and outputs have disappointed farmers’ efforts to invest in soil nutrient management techniques (27, 32), as it makes agriculture a non-profitable venture. As a result, crop production is being performed by elders, women, and children since many youths migrate from rural to urban centers seeking job opportunities (32, 83, 96). Studies demonstrate that women can manage the soils around their homes and gardens because manure and other organic residues are concentrated at home and less attention is paid to distant fields (19, 114). Nevertheless, in SSA countries, women are constrained by poor agricultural extension services, access to financial resources, and access to improved agricultural inputs such as seeds, herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers, and mechanization (106, 129). This scenario has aggravated the problem of soil fertility decline and thus low crop production in most smallholder farming systems in Africa, threatening the livelihood of most rural communities.

Furthermore, this study discovered that smallholder farmers prioritize soil fertility management for crops with high monetary value (84). According to our findings, the staple and monetary value of crops for smallholders varied by country and region within the same country based on agro-ecological characteristics. For example, in Kenya, Mairura et al. (129) found that more fertilizer was applied to crops that generate more income and have staple value for farmers, such as coffee, banana, napier, tobacco, and maize, while less fertilizer was applied to sorghum, green gram, and millet. Similarly, Haileslassie et al. (68) found that in Ethiopia, crops with high monetary value, such as teff and wheat, receive more attention than crops with low profitability. Positive nutrient balances (particularly N, P, and K) were observed in Rwandan fields with high-value crops such as rice, banana, and tomato, whereas negative nutrient balances were observed in fields with maize, sorghum, cassava, onions, and ground nuts (84).

Another socioeconomic issue that most smallholder farmers face is a lack of information on the status of soil fertilitySome of the issues that smallholder farmers are unaware of are soil analysis, fertilizer recommendation rates, and new soil fertility technologies (22). This has resulted in fertilizer over application (high resource farmers) or under application (low resource farmers) resulting in nutrient imbalances in the majority of smallholder farming systems in SSA (22). In general, socioeconomic factors influence the adoption, efficacy, and sustainability of soil management technologies; thus, farmer participation in modifying existing or developing new soil management technologies is critical because they are the primary actors in farming activities (14, 134, 135).

3.2 Status of soil nutrient balance in smallholders’ farming systems

According to the findings of this review, the majority of studies on nutrient flow and balances have been conducted on mixed crop-livestock systems. The most researched farming systems in Kenya are highland perennials (dominated by coffee, bananas, and tea, with annual crops such as maize and legumes) and lowland cereals such as maize, sorghum, millet, and root crops like cassava. All of these systems are linked to livestock like cattle, goats, sheep, and poultry (Table 2). Similarly, the dominant farming systems in Ethiopia are crop-livestock farming systems, mostly enset-based with banana and cereals like barley, wheat, and teff and vegetables in the highlands, and teff-based with barley, wheat, maize, sorghum, and legumes in the lowlands (Table 2). Other farming systems investigated include agro pastoral in Nigeria, Mali, Tanzania, Uganda, and Burkina Faso (46, 47, 49, 72, 73, 81, 82, 137, 138), and maize-mixed with crops such as legumes, cassava (57, 62, 71, 75). Based on the current review, Table 2 shows the average nutrient balance in the most studied countries over the last three decades. Regardless of the farming systems, the overall mean nutrient balances (particularly for N and K) reported in all studies were negative, with P being relatively small positive. Nitrogen, unlike other soil nutrients that are most likely derived from parent materials, must be supplemented externally. Nonetheless, N is the most required nutrient by plants and the most mobile nutrient, making it easily lost from the soil through harvested products, leaching, volatilization, erosion, and denitrification if not managed properly (88, 139). Potassium, on the other hand, is the third most important nutrient for crops after phosphorus (140). Despite the fact that potassium is abundant in soils, the readily available pool is so small, and the fate of K in soil is almost similar to that of N (141). This has been attributed to the high negative nitrogen and potassium balances found in most studies, particularly when the same field is cultivated for an extended period of time with little or no nutrient replenishment. The degree of nutrient depletion between N and K varied from study to study, depending on the cropping system in a given area. For example, Wortmann and Kaizzi (54) found a high negative balance of K in banana, bean, and sweet potato cropping systems, while maize and soybean cropping systems had a high negative balance of N in the same agro-ecological zone. Similarly, studies by Amann et al. (21); Diarisso et al. (103); and Abegaz (18), to name a few, found a high negative balance in K compared to N, whereas De Jager et al. (27); Bekunda and Manzi (67); and Tunya (98) found a high negative balance in N compared to K. The positive P balance observed in some studies could be attributed to the residue effect of applied P fertilizers or manure in those farming systems (98, 142). It is estimated that 70-90% of applied P fertilizer in soil becomes sorbed to soil particles and transforms into less available forms very quickly (143).

TABLE 2

Table 2 Average full nutrient balances in the different farming systems.

Crop harvesting and soil erosion are reported to be the major nutrient outputs in smallholder farming systems. According to Smaling and Fresco (40), harvested crop products and crop residues exported up to 61, 11, and 46 kg ha^-1 year^-1 of N, P, and K, respectively, accounting for 50–70% of total losses, while soil erosion contributed roughly one-third of total losses. Other nutrient outputs, such as leaching and gaseous losses, varied depending on soil type, climatic conditions, and management practices, but their contributions to nutrient loss were significantly low (40, 68).

The current review discovered significant differences in nutrient balances among farmers with similar agro-ecological conditions (i.e., soils, climate, and infrastructure). It demonstrates the importance of management practices in nutrient flow and balance. Given the diverse settings of smallholder farming systems across all studies, we found it difficult to make comparisons on nutrient balance in various farming systems for the current review due to variation between studies in terms of type of balance (partial or full), scale of study (farm, plot, village, district), and wealthy categories (rich, medium, poor). However, studies comparing wealthy farmers found that farm nutrient flow and balances were more positive in richly endowed resource farmers (i.e., those with high resource access) than in poor resource farmers [Shepherd & Soule (5, 50, 56, 62, 81, 87, 114, 144)]. It follows that richer farmers use large amounts of inorganic fertilizers and organic inputs on their fields (5). Moreover, richer farmers own more livestock which accounts for large amounts of manure produced on their farms and are likely to outsource additional manure/and or crop residues as fodder (145). This contrasts with poor farmers, whereby most of them are faced with multiple constraints including shortage of family labour and low purchasing power to inorganic fertilizers and/or additional source of manure (28, 62, 114). However, this is not always the case; for example, Elias (74) found high nutrient depletion, particularly N (-85 and -102 kg ha^-1 yr^-1) in some rich farmer fields, whereas poor farmers had a low negative N balance (-50 and -56 kg ha^-1 yr^-1). This explains that not how much input is put into the soil but how to manage those inputs matters.

Similar observations are reported in studies that compared homestead farms with distant fields (Figure 3) (62, 84). As smallholder farmers have limited access to inputs and focus on surviving, a considerable soil fertility gradient usually develops from the homestead to the so-called “far” fields. (68). The limited attention to soil fertility management on fields that are located away from home derives directly from the low farmers’ income (62, 114). Hence, the cost of transporting inputs such as fertilizers (both inorganic and organic fertilizers) and the labour requirement preclude optimal nutrient management in these fields. Gender differences also contributes to differences in adoption of soil fertility management, hence nutrient balance. A study by Gebresamuel et al. (106), found that female-headed households had more positive N, P, and K balances in their fields than male-headed households. Among other things, it appears that female-headed households have fewer animals or no livestock, resulting in low crop residue removal from their fields (106). Although women seem to be good soil fertility managers, due to multiple tasks obliged by women such as handling children their effort in soil fertility management is negligible thus crop production remains below potential yields. There are conflicting findings regarding the relationship between farming systems and nutrient balance; however, most studies concluded that farms with high levels of inputs (both organic and inorganic) performed well in terms of productivity and nutrient balance and stocks.

FIGURE 3

Figure 3 A schematic representation of nutrient flow between, within, and outside homesteads and distance farms.

3.3 Studies on nutrient budgets in smallholders’ farming systems in SSA

The decline in soil fertility in SSA soils is threatening soil productivity in most arable lands. Most nutrient balance studies have found more negative nutrient balances, particularly for macronutrients (N, P, and K), and the trend continued to rise year after year. In central Kenya, for example, the N, P and K balances were -55, 9 and -15 kgha^-1 yr^-1, respectively, in 1998, but had more than doubled to -116.2, -22.1, and -31.7 kgha^-1 yr^-1 five years later (56). Studies indicate that understanding the dynamics of farm nutrient flow is fundamental for proper implementation of appropriate soil nutrient management techniques (38, 146–148). Over the last three decades, numerous researchers have developed nutrient balance and budget models, including the system for quantitative evaluation of fertility in tropical soils (QUEFS), universal soil loss equation (USLE), nutrient monitoring (NUTMON), and material flow analysis (MFA), to name a few (21). NUTMON, however, is the most popular model for evaluating nutrient flow and budget in several SSA countries, particularly in East Africa, due to its ability to integrate both biophysical and socioeconomic approaches (29, 33, 38). When used properly, NUTMON provides an insight indicator for soil nutrient depletion and/or surplus, aiding in the planning of proper soil management practices (37). A better understanding of the nutrient budget may also raise awareness among agricultural stakeholders and policymakers. Nutrient budgets at the farm level can provide a comprehensive picture of nutrient flow from the village to the national level, informing stakeholders’ interventions (149).

In this review, we discovered that almost all NUTMON studies focused on the major three nutrients, namely N, P, and/or K, rather than other essential nutrients such as magnesium, calcium, sulfur, and micronutrients. Reports have shown that micronutrients such as zinc, iron, boron, and copper have been gradually decreasing in SSA soils, leading to malnutrition, particularly in children under the age of five (148, 150, 151). Iron and zinc deficiencies, for example, have been reported in many African countries, particularly among children under the age of five (151, 152). Despite this, little to no effort has been made to monitor these plant nutrients. Thus, researchers should investigate the balances of other essential plant nutrients. Furthermore, in most SSA countries, a lack of research capacity, particularly for long-term trials, has made it difficult to draw valid conclusions from NUTMON research (120, 153). Despite the success stories of NUTMON reported in SSA and elsewhere, the validity of the remains in doubt (30, 154). Transfer functions, which rely heavily on regression models, are too general and may not be applicable everywhere, contradicting the actual losses (36). Simply put, extensive use of NUTMON tools may result in an overestimation or underestimation of actual nutrient losses (30, 64). This suggests that there is still much work to be done on NUTMON, particularly in smallholder farming systems.

4 Conclusion

The goal of this review was to draw attention to problems involving the characteristics of smallholder farmers in soil nutrient management in SSA as a factor impacting soil nutrient balance. A phrase by Goulding et al. (86) stated that ‘You do not get something for nothing’; ‘you get out what you put in’. Agriculture must literally return to its roots by rediscovering the value of healthy soil, relying on natural sources of plant nutrition, and employing mineral fertilizers wisely. This review demonstrates that farming systems have a significant impact on soil nutrient flow and balance. However, socioeconomic factors play an important role in the management and sustainability of a specific farming system. While smallholder farmers recognize the importance of various technologies in soil fertility restoration, most SSA farmers have found it difficult to adopt these technologies.

Based on the findings of this review, it is clear that the majority of smallholder farmers in SSA rely entirely on organic inputs such as animal manure and crop residues, both of which are insufficient in quantity and quality. The reliance on organic inputs has been attributed to either smallholder farmers’ low purchasing power, poor agricultural policy and government support, or the research methods used, i.e., the “top-down” approach (without engaging the targeted community). Farmers in good financial standing, for example, have access to inputs, labor, off-farm income, and livestock possessions that poor farmers do not. As a result, it is past time for research efforts in developing countries to focus on site-specific nutrient management in the context of socioeconomic aspects, with close engagement of smallholder farmers (the primary stakeholders), so that the introduced technologies are well suited to the intended farming systems. NUTMON, the most widely used model in assessing soil nutrient balance, should take into account other limiting nutrients, such as micronutrients, and be validated based on the farming system of a given area.

Author contributions

LM: Conceptualization, writing original draft and editing. Other authors: Reviewing, editing and approved the final manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the VRIL-OUS project of The Nelson Mandela African Institute of Science and Technology for supporting preparations of this review.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

1. Dixon J, Garrity DP, Boffa JM, Williams TO, Amede T, Auricht C, et al. Farming systems and food security in Africa: priorities for science and policy under global change. Earthscan Food and Agriculture Series. (London and New York: Taylor & Francis Group). (2019) 79 pp.

Google Scholar

2. Giller KE, Tittonell P, Rufino MC, Van Wijk MT, Zingore S, Mapfumo P, et al. Communicating complexity: integrated assessment of trade-offs concerning soil fertility management within African farming systems to support innovation and development. Agric Syst (2011) 104(2):191–203. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.07.002

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

3. Giller KE, Delaune T, Silva JV, Descheemaeker K, van de Ven G, Schut AGT, et al. The future of farming: Who will produce our food? Food Secur (2021) 13:1073–99. doi: 10.1007/s12571-021-01184-6

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

4. Giller KE, Delaune T, Silva JV, Descheemaeker K, van de Ven G, Schut AGT, et al. Small farms and development in sub-Saharan Africa: Farming for food, for income or for lack of better options? Food Secur (2021) 13(6):1431–54. doi: 10.1007/s12571-021-01209-0

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

5. Fanjaniaina ML, Stark F, Ramarovahoaka NP, Rakotoharinaivo JF, Rafolisy T, Salgado P, et al. Nutrient flows and balances in mixed farming systems in Madagascar. Sustainability (2022) 14(2):984. doi: 10.3390/su14020984

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

6. Thornton PK, Herrero M. Adapting to climate change in the mixed crop and livestock farming systems in sub-Saharan Africa. Nat Clim Change (2015) 5:830–6. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2754

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

7. Rufino MC, Tittonell P, Van Wijk MT, Castellanos-Navarrete A, Delve RJ, De Ridder N, et al. (2007). Manure as a key resource within smallholder farming systems: Analysing farm scale nutrient cycling efficiencies with the NUANCES framework. Livestock Science 112:273–87. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2007.09.011

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

8. De Jager A, Bekunda M, Smaling EMA. (1999). Turning available technologies for improvement of soil fertility management into real options for farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. In Strategies for poverty alleviation and sustainable resource management in the fragile lands of sub-Saharan Africa: International Conference, Uganda, 25-29 May 1998 (pp. 205–43).

Google Scholar

9. Bisson A, Boudsocq S, Casenave C, Barot S, Manlay RJ, Vayssières J, et al. West African Mixed farming systems as meta-ecosystems: A source-sink modelling approach. Ecol Model (2019) 412:108803. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2019.108803

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

10. Van Beek CL, Onduro DD, Gachimbi LN, de Jager A. Farm nitrogen flows of four farmer field schools in Kenya. Nutr Cycling Agroecosyst (2009) 83:63–72. doi: 10.1007/s10705-008-9199-6

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

11. Huluka SG, Wogi D, Argaw M. Nutrient flows and balances under crop-livestock farming system of yabala, bedele district, southwesteren oromia, Ethiopia. Haramaya University: Doctoral dissertation (2018).

Google Scholar

12. Van Beek CL, Elias E, Yihenew GS, Heesmans H, Tsegaye A, Feyisa H, et al. Soil nutrient balances under diverse agro-ecological settings in Ethiopia. Nutrient Cycling Agroecosystems (2016) 106(3):257–74. doi: 10.1007/s10705-016-9803-0

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

13. Zingore S, González-Estrada E, Delve RJ, Herrero M, Dimes JP, Giller KE. An integrated evaluation of strategies for enhancing productivity and profitability of resource-constrained smallholder farms in Zimbabwe. Agric Syst (2009) 101(1-2):57–68. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2009.03.003

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

14. Takele L, Chimdi A, Abebaw A. Socio-economic factors affecting soil fertility management practices in gindeberet area, Western Ethiopia. Science Technol Arts Res J (2015) 4(1):149–53. doi: 10.4314/star.v4i1.25

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

15. Onduru DD, Du Preez CC, Muchena FN, Gachimbi LN, De Jager A, Gachini GN. Exploring options for integrated nutrient management in semi-arid tropics using farmer field schools: a case study in mbeere district, eastern Kenya. Int J Agric Sustainability (2008) 6(3):208–28. doi: 10.3763/ijas.2008.0267

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

16. Koning N, Smaling E. Environmental crisis or ‘lie of the land’? debate Soil degradation Africa. Land Use Policy (2005) 22(1):3–11. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.08.003

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

17. Mucheru-Muna MW, Ada MA, Mugwe JN, Mairura FS, Mugi-Ngenga E, Zingore S, et al. (2021). Socio-economic predictors, soil fertility knowledge domains and strategies for sustainable maize intensification in Embu County, Kenya. Heliyon 7(2), 15 pp, e06345. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06345

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

18. Abegaz A. Farm management in mixed crop-livestock systems in the northern highlands of Ethiopia. (Wageningen, Netherlands: Wageningen University and Research) (2005), 224.

Google Scholar

19. Baijukya FP, De Ridder N, Masuki KF, Giller KE. Dynamics of banana-based farming systems in bukoba district, Tanzania: changes in land use, cropping and cattle keeping. Agriculture Ecosyst Environ (2005) 106(4):395–406. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2004.08.010

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

20. Shu-Hao QLIC, Zhang J-L, Wang D, Wang DI. Soil nutrient availability and microbial properties of a potato field under ridge-furrow and plastic mulch. Arid Land Res Manage (2016) 30:181–92. doi: 10.1080/15324982.2015.1033066

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

21. Amann A, Herrnegger M, Karungi J, Komakech AJ, Mwanake H, Schneider L, et al. Can local nutrient-circularity and erosion control increase yields of resource-constraint smallholder farmers? A Case study Kenya Uganda. J Cleaner Production (2021) 318:128510. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128510

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

22. Abdulrahman BL, Jibrin JM, Bashir M. Estimating partial nutrient balance using nutmon model in irrigated rice-based farms of the Nigerian dry savanna. Nigerian J Soil Sci (2019) 28(2):131–8. doi: 10.36265/njss.2018.280215

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

23. Aschonitis V, Karydas CG, Iatrou M, Mourelatos S, Metaxa I, Tziachris P, et al. An integrated approach to assessing the soil quality and nutritional status of large and long-term cultivated rice agro-ecosystems. Agriculture (2019) 9(4):80. doi: 10.3390/agriculture9040080

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

24. Stewart ZP, Pierzynski GM, Middendorf BJ, Prasad PV. Approaches to improve soil fertility in sub-Saharan Africa. J Exp Bot (2020) 71(2):632641. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erz446

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

25. Omuto CT, Vargas RR. Soil nutrient loss assessment in malawi. technical report. FAO, UNEP and UNDP (2018) p. 1–64.

Google Scholar

26. Smaling EM, Toulmin C. The itinerary of soil nutrients in Africa: destination anywhere? Outlook Agric (2000) 29(3):193–200. doi: 10.5367/000000000101293239

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

27. De Jager A, Nandwa SM, Okoth PF. Monitoring nutrient flows and economic performance in African farming systems (NUTMON): I. concepts and methodologies. Agriculture Ecosyst Environ (1998b) 71(1-3):37–48. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(98)00130-3

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

28. Rurinda J, Costa C Jr., Omollo E, Motaroki L, Osumba JL. Improved nutrient use and manure management in Africa. Policy Brief No. (2020) 7:1–8.

Google Scholar

29. De Jager A, Kariuki I, Matiri FM, Odendo M, Wanyama JM. Monitoring nutrient flows and economic performance in African farming systems (NUTMON). IV. linking farm economic performance and nutrient balances in three districts in Kenya. Agriculture Ecosyst Environ (1998a) 71:83–94. doi: 10.1016/S01678809(98)00133-9

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

30. Cobo JG, Dercon G, Cadisch G. Nutrient balances in African land use systems across different spatial scales: a review of approaches, challenges and progress. Agric Ecosyst Environ (2010) 136(1-2):1–15. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2009.11.006

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

31. Bindraban PS, Stoorvogel JJ, Jansen DM, Vlaming J, Groot JJR. Land quality indicators for sustainable land management: proposed method for yield gap and soil nutrient balance. Agriculture Ecosyst Environ (2000) 81(2):103–12. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(00;00184-5F

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

32. Gachimbi LN, Van Keulen H, Thuranira EG, Karuku AM, De Jager A, Nguluu S, et al. Nutrient balances at farm level in machakos (Kenya), using a participatory nutrient monitoring (NUTMON) approach. Land Use Policy (2005) 22(1):13–22. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.07.002

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

33. Van den Bosch H, De Jager A, Vlaming J. Monitoring nutrient flows and economic performance in African farming systems (NUTMON): II. tool development. Agriculture Ecosyst Environ (1998) 71(1-3):49–62. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(98)00131-5

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

34. Janssen BH, Guiking FCT, van der Eijk D, Smaling EM, Wolf J, van Reuler H. A system for quantitative evaluation of the fertility of tropical soils (QUEFTS). Geoderma (1990) 46(4):299–318. doi: 10.1016/0016-7061(90)90021-Z

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

35. Bontkes TS, Wopereis M. Decision support tools for smallholder agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa: A practical guide. IFDC (2003), 194.

Google Scholar

36. Færge J, Magid J. Evaluating NUTMON nutrient balancing in sub-Saharan Africa. Nutrient Cycling Agroecosystems (2004) 69(2):101–10. doi: 10.1023/B:FRES.0000029680.97610.51

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

37. Kiboi MN, Ngetich FK, Mugendi DN. Nitrogen budgets and flows in African smallholder farming systems. AIMS Agric Food (2019) 4(2):429–46. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.2.429

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

38. Usman M. Budgeting plant nutrients for optimum crop yields and soil fertility management. Int Res J Natural Appl Sci (2018) 5(2):16–27.

Google Scholar

39. Stoorvogel JJ, Smaling EMA. Assessment of soil nutrient depletion in Sub-Saharan Africa: 1983 - 2000. In: Nutrient balances per crop and per land use systems. (Report /Win and staring centre; no. 28). ISRIC, vol. 2. (1990b). Available at: https://edepot.wur.nl/305176.

Google Scholar

40. Smaling EMA, Fresco LO. A decision-support model for monitoring nutrient balances under agricultural land use (NUTMON). Geoderma (1993) 60(1-4):235–56. doi: 10.1016/00167061(93)90029-K

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

41. Stoorvogel JJ, Smaling EMA. Assessment of soil nutrient depletion in SubSaharan Africa: 1983-2000. In: Main report (No. 28). SC-DLO, vol. 1. (1990a).

Google Scholar

42. Van den Bosch H, Gitari JN, Ogaro VN, Maobe S, Vlaming J. Monitoring nutrient flows and economic performance in African farming systems (NUTMON). III. monitoring nutrient flows and balances in three districts in Kenya. Agriculture Ecosyst Environ (1998) 71(1-3):63–80.

Google Scholar

43. Vlaming J, Van den Bosch H, Van Wijk MS, De Jager A, Bannink A, Van Keulen H. Monitoring nutrient flows and economic performance in tropical farming systems (NUTMON); part 1: manual for the NUTMON-toolbox. Alterra (2001) 177.

Google Scholar

44. Van der Pol F, Traore B. Soil nutrient depletion by agricultural production in southern Mali. Fertilizer Res (1993) 36:79–90.

Google Scholar

45. Elias E, Morse S, Belshaw DGR. Nitrogen and phosphorus balances of kindo koisha farms in southern Ethiopia. Agriculture Ecosyst Environ (1998) 71(1-3):93–113. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(98)00134-0

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

46. Harris FMA. Farm-level assessment of the nutrient balance in northern Nigeria. Agriculture Ecosyst Environ (1998) 71(1-3):201–14. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(98)00141-8

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

47. Ramisch J. In the balance. evaluating soil nutrient budgets for an agro-pastoral village of southern Mali. Managing Africa’s Soils (1999) 9:1–28.

Google Scholar

48. Krogh L. Field and village nutrient balances in millet cultivation in northern Burkina Faso: a village case study. J Arid Environments (1997) 35(1):147–59.

Google Scholar

49. Defoer T, De Groote H, Hilhorst T, Kante S, Budelman A. Participatory action research and quantitative analysis for nutrient management in southern Mali: a fruitful marriage? Agriculture Ecosyst Environ (1998) 71(1-3):215–28. doi: 10.1016/s0167-8809(98)00142-x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

50. Shepherd KD, Soule MJ. Soil fertility management in west Kenya: dynamic simulation of productivity, profitability and sustainability at different resource endowment levels. Agriculture Ecosyst Environ (1998) 71(1-3):131–45. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(98)00136-4

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

51. Budelman A, Mizambwa F, Stroud A, Kileo R. The application of the nutrient flow analysis in land use diagnostics: the case of north sukumaland, land zone, Tanzania. In: Workshop on nutrient cycling and soil fertility management in Africa, vol. 26. Ethiopia: Soddo (1995).

Google Scholar

52. Folmer ECR, Geurts PMH, Francisco JR. Assessment of soil fertility depletion in Mozambique. Agriculture Ecosyst Environ (1998) 71(1-3):159–67. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(98)00138-8

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

53. Saleem MM. Nutrient balance patterns in African livestock systems. Agriculture Ecosyst Environ (1998) 71(1-3):241–54. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(98)00144-3

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

54. Wortmann CS, Kaizzi CK. Nutrient balances and expected effects of alternative practices in farming systems of Uganda. Agriculture Ecosyst Environ (1998) 71(1-3):115–29. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(98)00135-2

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

55. Haileslassie A, Priess JA, Veldkamp E, Lesschen JP. Nutrient flows and balances at the field and farm scale: Exploring effects of land-use strategies and access to resources. Agric Syst (2007) 94(2):459–70. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2006.11.013

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

56. Kathuku AN, Kimani SK, Okalebo JR, Othieno CO, Vanlauwe B. Integrated soil fertility management: Use of NUTMON to quantify nutrient flows in farming systems in central Kenya. In: Bationo A, Waswa B, Kihara J, Kimetu J, editors. Advances in integrated soil fertility management in Sub-Saharan Africa: Challenges and opportunities. Dordrecht: Springer (2007). doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-5760-1_25

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

57. Ncube B, Twomlow SJ, Dimes JP, Van Wijk MT, Giller KE. Resource flows, crops and soil fertility management in smallholder farming systems in semi-arid Zimbabwe. Soil Use Manage (2009) 25(1):78–90. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-2743.2009.00193.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

58. Nkonya E, Kaizzi C, Pender J. Determinants of nutrient balances in a maize farming system in eastern Uganda. Agric Syst (2005) 85(2):155–82. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2004.04.004

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

59. Onduru DD, De Jager A, Muchena FN, Gachimbi L, Gachini GN. Socioeconomic factors, soil fertility management and cropping practices in mixed farming systems of sub-Saharan Africa: A study in kiambu, central highlands of Kenya. Int J Agric Res (2007) 2(5):426–39.

Google Scholar

60. De Jager A, Onduru D, Van Wijk MS, Vlaming J, Gachini GN. Assessing sustainability of low-external-input farm management systems with the nutrient monitoring approach: a case study in Kenya. Agric Syst (2001) 69(1-2):99–118. doi: 10.1016/S0308-521X(01)00020-8

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

61. De Jager A, Van Keulen H, Mainah F, Gachimbi LN, Itabari JK, Thuranira EG, et al. Attaining sustainable farm management systems in semi-arid areas in Kenya: Few technical options, many policy challenges. Int J Agric Sustain (2005) 3(3):189–205. doi: 10.1080/14735903.2005.9684756

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

62. Zingore S, Murwira HK, Delve RJ, Giller KE. Influence of nutrient management strategies on variability of soil fertility, crop yields and nutrient balances on smallholder farms in Zimbabwe. Agriculture Ecosyst Environ (2007) 119(1-2):112–26. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2006.06.019

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

63. Utiger C, Romney DL, Njoroge L, Staal SJ, Lukuyu BA, Chege L. Nutrient flows and balances in intensive crop-dairy production systems in the Kenya highlands. (2000).

Google Scholar

64. Assefa A, van Keulen H. Soil nutrient dynamics under alternative farm management practices in integrated crop-livestock systems in the Northern Highlands of Ethiopia: A simulation study. In: Farm management in mixed crop-livestock systems in the Northern Highlands of Ethiopia, Wageningen The Netherlands (2005). p.143–75.

Google Scholar

65. Gachimbi LN, De Jager A, Van Keulen H, Thuranira EG, Nandwa SM. Participatory diagnosis of soil nutrient depletion in semi-arid areas of Kenya. NUTNET. Project (2002) 15.

Google Scholar

66. Elias E. Farmer’s perceptions of soil fertility change and management. SOS-Sahel Institute Sustain Dev Addis Ababa (2002) p:252.

Google Scholar

67. Bekunda M, Manzi G. Use of the partial nutrient budget as an indicator of nutrient depletion in the highlands of southwestern Uganda. Nutrient Cycling Agroecosystems (2003) 67(2):187–95. doi: 10.1023/A:1025509400226

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

68. Haileslassie A, Priess J, Veldkamp E, Teketay D, Lesschen JP. Assessment of soil nutrient depletion and its spatial variability on smallholders’ mixed farming systems in Ethiopia using partial versus full nutrient balances. Agric Ecosyst Environ (2005) 108(1):1–16. doi: 10.1016/J.Agee.2004.12.010

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

69. Dougill AJ, Twyman C, Thomas DS, Sporton D. Soil degradation assessment in mixed farming systems of southern Africa: use of nutrient balance studies for participatory degradation monitoring. Geographical J (2002) 168(3):195–210. doi: 10.1111/1475-4959.00048

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

70. Tittonell PABLO, Leffelaar PA, Vanlauwe B, Van Wijk MT, Giller KE. Exploring diversity of crop and soil management within smallholder African farms: A dynamic model for simulation of N balances and use efficiencies at field scale. Agric Syst (2006) 91(1-2):71–101. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2006.01.010

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

71. Leonardo WJ. Patterns of nutrient allocation and management in smallholder farming system in massingir district, Mozambique. A Case study Banga village. (2007) 133.

Google Scholar

72. Lesschen JP, Stoorvogel JJ, Smaling EMA, Heuvelink GBM, Veldkamp A. A spatially explicit methodology to quantify soil nutrient balances and their uncertainties at the national level. Nutrient Cycling Agroecosystems (2007) 78(2):111–31. doi: 10.1007/s10705-006-9078-y

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

73. Ramisch JJ. Inequality, agro-pastoral exchanges, and soil fertility gradients in southern Mali. Agriculture Ecosyst Environ (2005) 105(1-2):353–72. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2004.02.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

74. Elias E. Nutrient flow analysis at farm level southern Ethiopia. Ethiopian J Natural Resour (2004) 6(1):1–23.

Google Scholar

75. Saıdou A, Janssen BH, Temminghoff EJM. Effects of soil properties, mulch and NPK fertilizer on maize yields and nutrient budgets on ferralitic soils in southern Benin. Agriculture Ecosyst Environ (2003) 100(2-3):265–73. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(03)00184-1

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

76. Zougmoré R, Mando A, Stroosnijder L, Guillobez S. Nitrogen flows and balances as affected by water and nutrient management in a sorghum cropping system of semiarid Burkina Faso. Field Crops Res (2004) 90(2-3):235–44. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2004.03.006

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

77. Mwijage A, de Ridder N, Baijukya FP, Pacini C, Giller KE. Exploring the variability among smallholder farms in the banana-based farming systems in bukoba district, Northwest Tanzania. Afr J Agric Res (2009) 4(12):1410–26.

Google Scholar

78. Kaliisa R. Determinants of soil water conservation and nutrient flow management in bufundi Sub-catchment, Kabale district, Uganda. [Doctoral Dissertation] Kenya: Kenyatta University, School of Pure and Applied Sciences (2012). p. 121.

Google Scholar

79. Adamtey N, Musyoka MW, Zundel C, Cobo JG, Karanja E, Fiaboe KK, et al. Productivity, profitability and partial nutrient balance in maize-based conventional and organic farming systems in Kenya. Agriculture Ecosyst Environ (2016) 235:6179. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2016.10.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

80. Tully K, Sullivan C, Weil R, Sanchez P. The state of soil degradation in SubSaharan Africa: Baselines, trajectories, and solutions. Sustainability (2015) 7(6):6523–52. doi: 10.3390/su7066523

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

81. Abdulkadir A, Leffelaar PA, Agbenin JO, Giller KE. Nutrient flows and balances in urban and peri-urban agroecosystems of Kano, Nigeria. Nutrient Cycling Agroecosystems (2013) 95(2):231–54. doi: 10.1007/s10705-013-9560-2

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

82. Ebanyat P, de Ridder N, De Jager A, Delve RJ, Bekunda MA, Giller KE. Drivers of land use change and household determinants of sustainability in smallholder farming systems of Eastern Uganda. Population Environ (2010) 31(6):474–506. doi: 10.1007/s11111-010-0104-2

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

83. Esilaba AO, Nyende P, Nalukenge G, Byalebeka JB, Delve RJ, Ssali H. Resource flows and nutrient balances in smallholder farming systems in Mayuge District, Eastern Uganda. (2004). Available at: https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/69943/CIAT_NARO_NUTRIENT_FLOW_%20ANALYSIS.pdf?sequence=1. (Accessed on January 2023).

Google Scholar

84. Kabirigi M, Musana B, Kagabo DM, Mukuralinda A, Nabahungu NL. Nutrients flow as affected by cropping system and production niche in smallholder farmers of cyabayaga watershed. Agric Sci (2016) 7(5):287–94. doi: 10.4236/as.2016.75028

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

85. Tankou CM, de Snoo GR, de Longh HH, Persoon GA. Soil quality assessment of cropping systems in the Western highlands of Cameroon. Int J Agric Res (2013) 8(1):1–16. doi: 10.3923/ijar.2013.1.16

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

86. Bucagu C, Vanlauwe B, Van Wijk MT, Giller KE. Resource use and food selfsufficiency at farm scale within two agro-ecological zones of Rwanda. Food Secur (2014) 6:609–28. doi: 10.1007/s12571-014-0382-0

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

87. Tadesse ST, Oenema O, Beek C, Van Lemessa F. Diversity and nutrient balances of urban and peri-urban farms in Ethiopia. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst (2018) 111:1–18. doi: 10.1007/s10705-018-9911-0

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

88. Lelei JJ, Tunya BA. Contribution of legumes and phosphorus fertilizer to nutrient balances in a sorghum based cropping system in njoro Kenya. J Exp Agri Int (2016) 13(3):1–12. doi: 10.9734/AJEA/2016/26938

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

89. Vaittinen M. Is there demand for a sharing economy of nutrients?: nutrient balance in Ethiopia, ivory coast and Finland (2019) Master's thesis, LUT University, Finland.

Google Scholar

90. Ehabe EE, Bidzanga NL, Mba CM, Nkengafac Njukeng J, De Barros I, Enjalric F. Nutrient flows in perennial crop-based farming systems in the humid forests of Cameroon. (2010) 1:38–46. doi: 10.4236/ajps.2010.11006

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

91. Sitienei RC, Onwonga RN, Lelei JJ, Kamoni P. Use of dolichos (Lablab purpureus l.) and combined fertilizers enhance soil nutrient availability, and maize (Zea mays l.) yield in farming systems of kabete Sub county Kenya. Agric Sci Res J (2017) 7(2):47–61.

Google Scholar

92. Muendo PN, Stoorvogel JJ, Verdegem MC, Mora-Vallejo A, Verreth JA. Ideotyping integrated aquaculture systems to balance soil nutrients. J Agric Rural Dev Tropics Subtropics (JARTS) (2011) 112(2):157–68.

Google Scholar

93. Namoi NL, Onwonga RN, Onyango CM, Karuku GN, Kathumo VM. Assessment of soil nutrient balances in organic based cassava (Manihot esculenta crantz) and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) moench) cropping systems of yatta subcounty, Kenya. (2014) 4(12):1558–78. doi: 10.9734/AJEA/2014/10230

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

94. Meylan G. Nutrient flow scenarios for sustainable smallholder farming systems in southwestern Burkina Faso. Amman, Jordan: CRP on Dryland Systems (DS (2017).

Google Scholar

95. Onwonga RN, Templer NA, Lelei JJ, Toroitich FJ. Combined effects of legumes with phosphorus fertilizer on nutrient balances and gross margins in maize (Zea mays l.) systems of kabete sub-county, Kenya. J @ Biol Agric Healthc. (2015) 5:65–77.

Google Scholar

96. Achola GQ. Effect of organic based soil fertility management strategies on soil nutrient status and marketable quality of kales (Brassica oleracea var. acephala) in kabete. Kenya: Doctoral dissertation (2014).

Google Scholar

97. Rufino MC, Brandt P, Herrero M, Butterbach-Bahl K. (2014). Reducing uncertainty in nitrogen budgets for African livestock systems. Environmental Research Letters 9(10), 14. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/9/10/105008

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

98. Tunya BA. Effect of chickpea (Cicer arietinum l.) and white lupin (Lupinus albus l.) on phosphorus mobilization from minjingu phosphate rock, soil available n and sorghum yields in various cropping systems. Doctoral dissertation. Kenya: Egerton University (2015). p.68.

Google Scholar

99. Kiros G, Haile M, Gebresamuel G. Assessing the input and output flows and nutrients balance analysis at catchment level in northern Ethiopia. J Soil Sci Environ Manage (2014) 5(1):1–12. doi: 10.5897/JSSEM13.0398

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

100. Enyew A. Evaluations of the effect of water management technologies on partial nutrient balance for wheat (Triticumaestive l.) production in koga watershed, Ethiopia. In: MSc Dissertation. Ethiopia: Bahir Dar Institute of Technology (2019). p. 81.

Google Scholar

101. Melese G. Nutrient balance in small catchments of the upland areas of the gumara river, northwestern Ethiopia. In: MSc Thesis. Ethiopia: University of Bahir Dar (2019). p. 71.

Google Scholar

102. Onduru DD. Coping with uncertainty: perspectives on sustainability of smallholder agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa. Middlesex University for the degree Doctor of Professional Studies by Public Works (London) (2014). p. 162.

Google Scholar

103. Diarisso T, Corbeels M, Andrieu N, Djamen P, Tittonell P. Biomass transfers and nutrient budgets of the agro-pastoral systems in a village territory in south-western Burkina Faso. Nutrient Cycling Agroecosystems (2015) 101:295–315. doi: 10.1007/s10705-015-9679-4

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

104. Reetsch A, Schwärzel K, Dornack C, Stephene S, Feger KH. Optimising nutrient cycles to improve food security in smallholder farming families–a case study from banana-Coffee-Based farming in the kagera region, NW Tanzania. Sustainability (2020) 12(21):9105. doi: 10.3390/su12219105

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

105. Mesfin S, Gebresamuel G, Zenebe A, Haile M. Nutrient balances in smallholder farms in northern Ethiopia. Soil Use Manage (2021) 37(3):468–78. doi: 10.1111/sum.12635

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

106. Gebresamuel G, Opazo-Salazar D, Corral-Núnez G, van Beek C, Elias E, Okolo CC. Nutrient balance of farming systems in tigray, northern Ethiopia. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr (2021) 21:315–28. doi: 10.1007/s42729-020-00362-3

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

107. Esubalew T, Amare T, Molla E. Soil nutrient balance and stock on smallholder farms at agew mariam watershed in northern Ethiopia. (2022) 18. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-1225228/v1

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

108. Lewoyehu M, Alemu Z, Adgo E. The effects of land management on soil fertility and nutrient balance in kecha and Laguna micro watersheds, amhara region, northwestern, Ethiopia. Cogent Food Agric (2020) 6(1):1–16. doi: 10.1080/23311932.2020.1853996

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

109. Mamuye M, Nebiyu A, Elias E, Berecha G. Combined use of organic and inorganic nutrient sources improved maize productivity and soil fertility in southwestern Ethiopia. Int J Plant Production (2021) 15:407–18. doi: 10.1007/s42106-021-00144-6

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

110. Havlin J, Heiniger R. Soil fertility management for better crop production. Agronomy (2020) 10(9):1349. doi: 10.3390/agronomy10091349

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

111. Craswell E, Vlek PL. Mining of nutrients in African soils due to agricultural intensification. In: Principles of sustainable soil management in agroecosystems. CRC Press (2013). 401–21. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262014160.

Google Scholar

112. Smaling EMA, Lesschen JP, Van Beek CL, De Jager A, Stoorvogel JJ, Batjes NH, et al. 11 where do we stand 20 years after the assessment of soil nutrient balances in Sub-Saharan Africa? In: World soil resources and food security (2013), ISBN: ISBN 9781439844502. p. 499–537. doi: 10.1201/b11238-15

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

113. Mbibueh BT, Fokeng RM, Tume SJ. Effects of land Cover/Use change and altitude on soil NPK nutrients in selected areas in the north West region of Cameroon. Adv Environ Eng Res (2021) 2(4):1–1. doi: 10.21926/aeer.2104038

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

114. Tittonell P, Vanlauwe B, Leffelaar PA, Rowe EC, Giller KE. Exploring diversity in soil fertility management of smallholder farms in western Kenya: I. heterogeneity at region and farm scale. Agriculture Ecosyst Environ (2005) 110(3-4):149–65. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2012.10.007

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

115. Bjornlund V, Bjornlund H, Van Rooyen AF. Why agricultural production in subSaharan Africa remains low compared to the rest of the world–a historical perspective. Int J Water Resour Dev (2020) 36(sup1):S20–53. doi: 10.1080/07900627.2020.1739512

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

116. Baah-Ofori RN, Amoakohene M. A review of soil fertility management communication in sub-Saharan Africa. J Agric Rural Dev Tropics Subtropics (JARTS) (2021) 122(1):1–12. doi: 10.17170/kobra-202102113200

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

117. Balume Kayani I, Agumas B, Musyoki M, Nziguheba G, Marohn C, Benz M, et al. Market access and resource endowment define the soil fertility status of smallholder farming systems of south-kivu, DR Congo. Soil Use Manage (2021) 37(2):353–66. doi: 10.1111/sum.12691

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

118. Osbahr H, Allan C. Indigenous knowledge of soil fertility management in southwest Niger. Geoderma (2003) 111(3-4):457–79. doi: 10.1016/S0016-7061(02)00277-X

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

119. Burton L, Jayachandran K, Bhansali S. The “Real-time” revolution for in situ soil nutrient sensing. J Electrochemical Soc (2020) 167(3):037569. doi: 10.1149/1945-7111/ab6f5d

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

120. Masso C, Nziguheba G, Mutegi J, Galy-Lacaux C, Wendt J, Butterbach-Bahl K, et al. Soil fertility management in sub-Saharan Africa. In: Sustainable agriculture reviews. Cham: Springer (2017). p. 205–31. doi: 10.1071/SR16332

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

121. Diogo RVC, Schlecht E, Buerkert A, Rufino MC, van Wijk MT. Increasing nutrient use efficiency through improved feeding and manure management in urban and peri-urban livestock units of a West African city: a scenario analysis. Agric Syst (2013) 114:64–72. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2012.09.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

122. Wanzala M. The Abuja declaration on fertilizers for an African green revolution—status of implementation at regional and national levels June 2011. The New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). Policy Alignment and Program Development Directorate, NEPAD. (2011). 4 pp.

Google Scholar

123. Winnie N, Giweta M, Gweyi-Onyango J, Mochoge B, Mutegi J, Nziguheba G, et al. Assessment of the 2006 Abuja fertilizer declaration with emphasis on nitrogen use efficiency to reduce yield gaps in maize production. Front Sustain Food Syst (2022) 5:758724. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2021.758724

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

124. Bonilla Cedrez C, Chamberlin J, Guo Z, Hijmans RJ. Spatial variation in fertilizer prices in Sub-Saharan Africa. PloS One (2020) 15(1):e0227764. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227764

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

125. Abuye F, Haile M, Haile W. Soil fertility status, fertilizer application and nutrient balance in SNNPR, southern Ethiopia in contrasting agro-ecological zones of Ethiopia. Afr J Agric Res (2021) 17(11):1433–52. doi: 10.5897/AJAR2021.15640

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

126. Chianu JN, Chianu JN, Mairura F. Mineral fertilizers in the farming systems of sub-Saharan Africa. A review. Agron Sustain Dev (2012) 32:545–66. doi: 10.1007/s13593-011-0050-0

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

127. Steyn A. Developing an understanding of agricultural sustainability in Sub-Saharan Africa through African relational environmentalism. Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University: MSc dissertation (2019).

Google Scholar

128. Kibii CJ. Competing priorities: addressing climate change in an agriculture-dependent region: how Sub-Saharan Africa is handling this. STG Policy Analysis (2022) 21. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/1814/74380.

Google Scholar

129. Mairura FS, Musafiri CM, Kiboi MN, Macharia JM, Ng'etich OK, Shisanya CA, et al. Farm factors influencing soil fertility management patterns in upper Eastern Kenya. Environ Challenges (2022) 6:100409. doi: 10.1016/j.envc.2021.100409

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

130. De Jager A. Practice makes perfect: Participatory innovation in soil fertility management to improve rural livelihoods in East Africa. Wageningen University and Research (2007) 218.

Google Scholar

131. Van Ittersum MK, Van Bussel LG, Wolf J, Grassini P, Van Wart J, Guilpart N, et al. Can sub-Saharan Africa feed itself? Proc Natl Acad Sci (2016) 113(52):14964–9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1610359113

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

132. Hansen LS, Sorgho R, Mank I, Nayna Schwerdtle P, Agure E, Bärnighausen T, et al. Home gardening in sub-Saharan Africa: A scoping review on practices and nutrition outcomes in rural Burkina Faso and Kenya. Food Energy Secur (2022):e388. doi: 10.1002/fes3.388

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

133. Baah-Ofori RN, Amoakohene M. A review of soil fertility management communication in sub-Saharan Africa. J Agric Rural Dev Tropics Subtropics (JARTS) (2021) 122(1):1–12. doi: 10.17170/kobra-202102113200

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

134. Mowo JG, Janssen BH, Oenema O, German LA, Mrema JP, Shemdoe RS. Soil fertility evaluation and management by smallholder farmer communities in northern Tanzania. Agriculture Ecosyst Environ (2006) 116(1-2):47–59. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2006.03.021

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

135. Alemu M. Sustainable land management. J Environ Prot (2016) 7:502506. doi: 10.4236/jep.2016.74045

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

136. Haileslassie A, Priess JA, Veldkamp E, Lesschen JP. Smallholders’ soil fertility management in the central highlands of Ethiopia: implications for nutrient stocks, balances and sustainability of agroecosystems. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst (2006) 75(1–3):135–46. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2006.11.013

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

137. Krogh L. Field and village nutrient balances in millet cultivation in northern Burkina Faso: a village case study. J Arid Environments (1997) 35(1):147–59. doi: 10.1006/jare.1996.0159

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

138. Ramisch JJ. Contending pathways of crop-livestock integration and the prospects of sustainable intensification in southern Mali. In: Proceedings of the ILRI-IITA conference on sustainable crop–livestock production for improved livelihoods and natural resource management in West Africa. Ibadan, Nigeria (2001). p. 19–22. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237741560.

Google Scholar

139. Alfaro M, Salazar F, Iraira S, Teuber N, Villarroel D, Ramírez L. Nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium losses in a grazing system with different stocking rates in a volcanic soil. Chilean J Agric Res (2008) 68(2):146–55. doi: 10.4067/S0718-58392008000200004

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

140. Goulding K, Murrell TS, Mikkelsen RL, Rosolem C, Johnston J, Wang H, et al. Outputs: potassium losses from agricultural systems. Improving potassium recommendations Agric Crops (2021) 75. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-59197-7_3

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

141. Bell MJ, Moody PW, Harch GR, Compton B, Want PS. Fate of potassium fertilizers applied to clay soils under rain-fed grain cropping in south-east Queensland, Australia. Soil Res (2009) 47(1):60–73. doi: 10.1071/SR08088

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

142. Goulding K, Jarvis S, Whitmore A. Optimizing nutrient management for farm systems. Philos Trans R Soc B: Biol Sci (2007) 363(1491):667–80. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2007.2177

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

143. Medinski T, Freese D, Reitz T. Changes in soil phosphorus balance and phosphorus-use efficiency under long-term fertilization conducted on agriculturally used chernozem in Germany. Can J Soil Sci (2018) 98(4):650–62. doi: 10.1139/cjss-2018-0061

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

144. Chikowo R, Zingore S, Snapp S, Johnston A. Farm typologies, soil fertility variability and nutrient management in smallholder farming in Sub-Saharan Africa. Nutrient cycling agroecosystems (2014) 100(1):1–18. doi: 10.1007/s10705-014-9632-y

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

145. Achard F, Banoin M. Fallows, forage production and nutrient transfers by livestock in Niger. Nutrient Cycling Agroecosystems (2003) 65(2):183–9. doi: 10.1023/A:1022111117516

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

146. Karna RD, Bauer S. Analyzing soil nutrient balances on small-scale farms in the mid-hills of Nepal: Do socio-economic factors matter for sustainable land use? Land Degradation Dev (2020) 31(18):3014–23. doi: 10.1002/ldr.3632

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

147. Zu D, Yang X, Su Z, Gu X, Yancang Wang Y. The soil nutrient monitoring system. Adv Sc. And Tech Lett (2014), 88–95. doi: 10.14257/astl.2014.77.17.

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

148. Mhoro L, Semu E, Amuri N, Msanya BM, Munishi JA, Malley Z. Growth and yield responses of rice, wheat and beans to zn and Cu fertilizers in soils of mbeya region, Tanzania. Int J Agric Policy Res (2015) 3(11):402–11. doi: 10.15739/IJAPR.067

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

149. Ngetich FK, Shisanya CA, Mugwe J, Mucheru-Muna M, Mugendi DN. The potential of organic and inorganic nutrient sources in sub-Saharan African crop farming systems. In: Soil fertility improvement and integrated nutrient management–a global prospective (2012). p. 135–56.

Google Scholar

150. Amuri NA, Mhoro L, Mwasyika T, Semu E. Potential of soil fertility management to improve essential mineral nutrient concentrations in vegetables in Dodoma and kilombero, Tanzania. J Agric Chem Environ (2017) 6(02):105. doi: 10.4236/jacen.2017.62007

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

151. Abegaz A, Keulen HV, Haile M, Oosting SJ. Nutrient dynamics on smallholder farms in teghane, northern highlands of Ethiopia. In: In advances in integrated soil fertility management in sub-Saharan Africa: Challenges and opportunities. Netherlands: Springer (2007). p. 365–78.

Google Scholar

152. De Valença AW, Bake A. Micronutrient management for improving harvests, human nutrition, and the environment. In: Scientific project, vol. 24. Netherlands: Food & Business Knowledge Platform (2016).

Google Scholar

153. Bashagaluke JB, Logah V, Opoku A, Sarkodie-Addo J, Quansah C. Soil nutrient loss through erosion: Impact of different cropping systems and soil amendments in Ghana. PloS One (2018) 13(12):e0208250. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208250

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

154. Ramisch JJ. Beyond the invisible: finding the social relevance of soil nutrient balances in southern Mali. In: Beyond the biophysical. Dordrecht: Springer (2010). p. 25–48. doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-8826-0_2

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar