Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

A bibliographic review of climate change and fertilization as the main drivers of maize yield: implications for food security

A bibliographic review of climate change and fertilization as the main drivers of maize yield:... Introduction Crop production contribution to food security faces unprecedented challenge of increasing human population. This is due to the decline in major cereal crop yields including maize resulting from climate change and declining soil infertility. Changes in soil nutrient status and climate have continued to occur and in response, new fertilizer recommendations in terms of formulations and application rates are continuously developed and applied globally. In this sense, this review was conducted to: (i) identify the key areas of concentration of research on fertilizer and climate change effect on maize grain yield, (ii) assess the extent of the effect of climate change on maize grain yield, (iii) evaluate the extent of the effect of fertilization practices on maize grain yield, and (iv) examine the effect of interaction between climate change factors and fertilization practices on maize grain yield at global perspective. Methodology Comprehensive search of global literature was conducted in Web of Science ( WoS) database. For objective 1, metadata on co-authorship (country, organisation), and co-occurrence of keywords were exported and analysed using VOSviewer software. For objective 2–4, yield data for each treatment presented in the articles were extracted and yield increment calculated. Results The most significant keywords: soil fertility, nutrient use efficiency, nitrogen use efficiency, integrated nutrient management, sustainability, and climate change adaptation revealed efforts to improve maize production, achieve food security, and protect the environment. A temperature rise of 1–4 °C decreased yield by 5–14% in warm areas and increased by < 5% in cold areas globally. Precipitation reduction decreased yield by 25–32%, while C O concentration increased and decreased yield by 2.4 to 7.3% and 9 to 14.6%, respectively. A promising fertilizer was −1 a combination of urea + nitrapyrin with an average yield of 5.1 and 14.4 t ha under non-irrigation and irrigation, respectively. Fertilization under climate change was projected to reduce yield in the average range of 10.5–18.3% by Conclusion The results signified that sole fertilizer intensification is insufficient to attain sustainable maize yield. Therefore, there is need for integrated agronomic research that combines fertilizers and other technologies for enhancing maize yield, and consequently maize contribution to the attainment of global food security under climate change conditions. Keywords Climate change, Drought, Fertilizers, Heat stress, Maize, Nitrogen, Temperature, Yield *Correspondence: Akasairi Ocwa ocwa.akasairi@agr.unideb.hu Full list of author information is available at the end of the article © The Author(s) 2023. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ publi cdoma in/ zero/1. 0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. Ocwa et al. Agriculture & Food Security (2023) 12:14 Page 2 of 18 units (CHU), but positively before side-dressing with Introduction different nitrogen fertilizer [33]. It was also reported that The human population is projected to rise to 9 billion by substituting chemical nitrogen fertilizer with organic 2050 and food necessity is anticipated to increase by 85% fertilizers may mitigate N O emission but may reduce [1, 2]. Sustaining this growing population requires stable maize yield as compared to sole inorganic nitrogen agricultural production and food systems [2, 3] which fertilizer application [34]. Generally, maize yield is are currently affected by land degradation and climate highly dependent on fertilizer management, soil type change [4, 5]. Attaining the correct balance between food and nutrient status, maize growth duration period, security, environment protection, and addressing climate and the initial soil organic content [35] and change in change remains the leading bottleneck to sustainable meteorological variables. Accordingly, changes in soil food production systems and arable land management nutrient status along with climate change occur every [6]. In fact, it is devastating for less-favoured agricultural year and new fertilizer recommendations in terms of areas inhabited by poor vulnerable groups of people types, formulations, and application rates continue to and communities in countries with limited resources to emerge which affect yield. mitigate the impacts resulting into food insecurity, and Based on the above literature, this research was poverty-environment traps [7, 8]. One way to respond is designed to bridge the gap in the literature about the transforming major crop production techniques to offset interaction between maize yield and fertilization in a the negative effects of climate change and consequently changing climate. However, the specific goals were to: increase agricultural productivity [9–17]. (i) identify the key areas of concentration of research Maize (Zea mays  L) is among the top three cereal on fertilizer and climate change effect on maize yield, food crops grown and consumed globally [18–21]. It is (ii) assess the extent of the effect of climate change on a staple food in the diets of millions of people in Africa, maize grain yield, (iii) evaluate the extent of the effect Latin America, and South Asia and important feed crop of fertilization practices on maize grain yield, and (iv) for livestock in Europe and North America. However, examine the effect of interaction between climate change there is still a significant global shortage of maize which factors and fertilization practices on maize grain yield at precipitates food insecurity [22]. Climate change and soil global perspective. fertility deterioration are among the causes contributing to declining maize production [20, 23]. Earlier, it was Methodology reported that increasing maize production in semi-arid Search strategy and document evaluation areas requires right fertilizer use, soil management, Comprehensive search of global literature was and application of other recommended practices [24]. conducted in Web of Science (WoS) database. WoS The interactions between climate, soil features, and was chosen because it is regarded as the most complete agronomic management are critical to understanding and extensively used database   archiving literature productivity and sustainability of maize agroecosystems used in  reviews and bibliometric analyses. The search [25, 26]. keywords were "Maize” AND “fertilizer” AND “climate Generally, the effect of climate change and fertilizer change” AND “soil” AND “yield” covering years 2003– application on maize production and yield has been 2021. No language restriction was applied because all documented differently [20, 27, 28]. For instance, the articles were written in English. The search yielded a interaction between temperature and rainfall alters soil total of 287 articles which included 269 journal articles, water balance and reduce soil moisture by 11.2%, hence 8 book reviews, and 10 conference proceedings. Being a aggravating soil drying [29]. Generally, the average manageable number, all articles were screened by titles, impact of different projected climate scenarios on grain abstracts, and keywords. All the 287 articles retrieved yield could range between − 9% and − 39% [30]. On the contained at least a keyword from the search equation other hand, fertilizer application has been reported to hence all used for bibliometric analyses to address increase yield depending of climate conditions. Literature objective one. shows contradicting effect of changes in temperature, For objective 2–4, the inclusion and exclusion strategy rainfall and CO concentration, and fertilizer on yield involved reviewing the articles to answer the following of maize. Earlier, it was reported that maize yield was questions: positively correlated with mean temperature change in the control and negatively with nitrogen application [31]. Moreover, yield reduction by drought increased 1. Was there any climate change factor effect on maize with the increased application of nitrogen [32]. Besides, yield reported? maize yield response was negatively correlated with a) Yes (heat or temperature or water or drought stress temperature effects expressed as accumulated corn heat or CO concentration effect on yield reported) 2 O cwa et al. Agriculture & Food Security (2023) 12:14 Page 3 of 18 b) No (something else) were calculated and presented in tabular form [36]. For c) Unclear climate effect, the key results from individual articles 2. Was there any fertilizer effect on maize yield were highlighted and synthesized without tabulating. reported? Qualitative evidence was also presented and discussed. a) Yes (organic or chemical fertilizer effect on yield reported) Results and discussion b) No (something else) Advancement of scientific documents based c) Unclear on literature search on maize, fertilizer, climate change, 3. Was there any fertilizer and climate change factor soil, and yield (MFCCSY) interaction effect on maize yield reported? During early 2000s, less than 4.8% of documents were a) Yes (organic or chemical fertilizer and heat or published. Later, the progress was 5 (2.1%) documents temperature or water or drought stress or CO in 2012, 7 (2.4%) in 2013, 15 (5.2%) in 2014, 20 (6.9%) in concentration interactive effect on yield reported) 2015, 16 (15.5%) in 2016, 28 (9.8%) in 2017, 36 (12.5%) in b) No (something else) 2018, and 51 (17.8%) in 2019. This represents a progres - c) Unclear sive increase from 2.1% to 17.8% from 2012 to 2019. How- ever, only a slight decrease was realised in the number of papers in 2020 and 2021 with 47 (16.4%). The trend was Therefore, only articles with yes response were selected exponential, justified by high R (0.9) model fit regarding for reporting of objectives 2–4, because they met the the scientific papers published in the topics of maize, fer - inclusion criteria (Fig. 1) for the topic of this study. tilizer, climate change, soil, and yield (MFCCSY) (Fig. 2). This increased number of publications signifies rapid Data extraction and analysis response to address agricultural resources degradation, Document metadata: For objective 1, author details, climate change, and food insecurity. The human popu - like names, affiliation and country, title of document, lation is projected to rise to 9 billion by 2050 and food abstract, publication date, and journal name exported. necessity anticipated to increase by 85% [1, 2]. The 2021 Bibliographic analyses for co-authorship (country, UN food system summit recommended addressing envi- organisation), co-occurrence of keywords (most ronmental challenges like averting climate change threats significant and all), and total links were conducted using on agrarian systems ability to sustainably  produce food. VOSviewer (Version 1.6.17) bibliographic metric tool. In response to that call, robust research on cropping sys- Results were visualized and mapped out to identify tems, soil factors, climate change, and major food crops potential gaps and highlight knowledge limits in terms of was carried out. regions where the studies were done. In total, 81 countries published at least one document For objectives 2–4, data extracted included country, on the MFCCSY topics. Out of the 81 countries, two soil type in experimental site, type of fertilizer, fertilizer published > 80 documents, five published between 20 and rates, and yield. Yield data were extracted directly from 43 documents, 11 published documents between 10 and article tables and using a WebPlotDigitizer if presented 19, and 63 published documents between 1 and 19. China as figures. Yield increase or decrease by major treatments Fig. 1 Documents’ assessment criteria Ocwa et al. Agriculture & Food Security (2023) 12:14 Page 4 of 18 0.2757x y = 1.1418e R² = 0.9263 2003 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Year of publication Fig. 2 Publication trends of web of science literature on MFCCSY from 2003 to 2021. MFCCSY: maize, fertilizer, climate change, soil, and yield published the highest number of papers (99) followed by Table 1 The top 20 publishing and co-authoring countries on the USA with 81 publications. These two countries con - MFCCSY based on web of science literature search between 2003 tributed 62.7% of the MFCCSY literature between 2003 and 2021 and 2022 in WoS. It was in accordance with corn pro- Rank Country Documents Total link duction of these countries: USA is the largest a producer strength (383,943 million t) and China is the second one (with 272,552 million t). These two countries co-authored more 1 Peoples Republic China 99 55 documents with countries with total link strength of 64 2 USA 81 64 and 55 in China and USA, respectively. The other coun - 3 Germany 43 37 tries that had slightly higher total link strength were Ger- 4 Kenya 29 26 man (37), Kenya (26), and United Kingdom (21) (Table 1). 5 Australia 24 21 Increasing publications and co-authorship (Figs.  3, 4) 6 India 23 17 on fertilizer and climate change effect on maize can be 7 Canada 20 16 regarded as evidence of more advanced research by these 8 England 18 17 countries to increase food production to sustain the ris- 9 Italy 18 13 ing population. However, each of the African countries 10 The Netherlands 16 16 published less than 15 documents in this period except 11 Ethiopia 14 12 Kenya that published 29 documents showing that Africa 12 Burkina Faso 13 13 needs to do more in terms of publishing research find - 13 Mexico 13 13 ings. Of course, this may not be conclusive, because it 14 Pakistan 12 11 is possible that studies of most African countries could 15 France 11 11 be published in journals not indexed by WoS. However, 16 Spain 11 9 we pointed on evidences of collaborations on what was 17 Ghana 10 10 reported earlier that Africa lagged behind in terms of 18 Zimbabwe 10 9 maize research and production hence low yield [37]. 19 Denmark 9 7 According to the network co-occurrence of all author 20 Mali 9 9 keywords, MFCCSY appeared 162, 140, 126, 126, and MFCCSY: maize, fertilizer, climate change, soil, and yield 91 times, respectively, out of 1586 words with total links Number of published documents O cwa et al. Agriculture & Food Security (2023) 12:14 Page 5 of 18 Fig. 3 Co-authorship countries (affiliations) on MFCCSY based on web of science literature search between 2003 and 2021. MFCCSY: maize, fertilizer, climate change, soil, and yield Fig. 4 Co-authorship organisations (affiliations) on MFCCSY based on web of science literature search between 2003 and 2021. MFCCSY: maize, fertilizer, climate change, soil, and yield of 168, 139, 126, 125, and 87 of all author keywords that change adaptation, drought, temperature, cropping sys- appeared in the published documents from 2003 to 2021 tems, integrated nutrient management, biochar, green- (Table  2). Accordingly, in the most significant author house gases, nitrogen fertilizer, nitrogen use efficiency, keywords, climate change, maize, maize yield, soil fertil- nitrate leaching, organic matter, nutrient use efficiency, ity, and fertilizer appeared 46, 52, 46, 20, and 32 times carbon sequestration, and sustainability among oth- with total links 40, 39, 38, 15, and 17, respectively, out ers (Figs.  5, 6). The keyword sustainability is evidence of of 882 words that appeared in the published documents maize sustainable intensification to increase yield with - (Table  3). In fact, higher total link value showed that the out degrading agroecosystems. The practices pointed keyword has been linked with others several times. The out in all authors’ keywords such as integrated nutri- other relevant keywords that appeared were climate ent use, nutrient use efficiency, nitrogen use efficiency, Ocwa et al. Agriculture & Food Security (2023) 12:14 Page 6 of 18 Table 2 Co-occurrence and total link of selected significant all author keywords on MFCCSY based on web of science literature search between 2003 and 2021 Keyword Occurrence Total link Crop/maize/grain yield 162 168 Climate change/variability 140 139 Maize/corn 126 126 Fertilizer (manure, compost, nitrogen/nitrogen fertilizer) 126 125 Soil/soil quality/physical properties/SOC 91 87 Cropping systems 49 49 Soil fertility 19 19 Climate smart agriculture/climate change adaptation/mitigation 19 19 Nitrogen use efficiency 15 15 Biochar 14 14 Nutrient management/integrated nutrient management 14 14 Temperature 14 14 Irrigation 13 13 Drought 11 11 Yield gap and stability 10 10 Nitrate leaching 9 9 Phosphorus 6 6 MFCCSY: maize, fertilizer, climate change, soil, and yield Table 3 Co-occurrence and total link of selected most significant author keywords on MFCCSY based on web of science literature search between 2003 and 2021 Keyword Occurrence Total link Climate change 46 40 Maize 52 39 Yield/crop yield 46 38 Soil fertility/soil organic carbon 20 15 Fertilizer/manure/compost 17 17 Nitrogen/nitrogen fertilizer 15 12 Biochar 11 8 Nutrient management/integrated nutrient management 10 9 Nitrate leaching 9 4 Nitrogen use efficiency 7 5 Climate smart agriculture climate change adaptation 10 6 Drought 6 5 MFCCSY: maize, fertilizer, climate change, soil, and yield and climate change adaptation ensure increased maize sustainably ensure stable food production and boost food productivity, food security, and environmental security. security [39, 40]. Overall, judicious fertilizer intensifica - Particularly, the keyword nitrogen use efficacy is a per - tion in maize production is partly directed to the attain- tinent area of research focus, because it ensures high ment of SDG2 (zero hunger) and 13 (climate action). yield production though at environmental cost if  over applied. Excess nitrogen in the environment degrades Eec ff t of climate change on maize yield soil, reduces water, and air quality, and contributes to cli- According to United Nations Framework Convention mate change by increasing N O and NO emissions [38]. on Climate Change (UNFCCC), climate change caused This underscores application of technologies that ensure directly or indirectly by human activities affect global effective use of fertilizers inputs in crop production to atmospheric composition. Ultimately, these activities O cwa et al. Agriculture & Food Security (2023) 12:14 Page 7 of 18 Fig. 5 Network of co-occurrence of the most significant author keywords on MFCCSY based on web of science literature search between 2003 and 2021. MFCCSY: maize, fertilizer, climate change, soil, and yield Fig. 6 Network of co-occurrence of all author keywords on MFCCSY based on web of science literature search between 2003 and 2021. MFCCSY: maize, fertilizer, climate change, soil, and yield change the climate characteristics  hence affecting pro - was predicted to decrease by 10–17%, 8.9–14.7%, and ductivity of agroecosystems. In this sense, research- 10.1–12.9% in 2030s, 2050s, and 2070s, respectively ers analyse the effect of climate change on crop yield under increasing CO [48]. Accordingly, CO decreased 2 2 [41–47]. For example, rise in C O concentration under yield by 0.1% at 360 ppm (1980–2009), 0.8% at 496 ppm projected climate change was predicted to increase (2040–2069), and increased yield by 2.4% at 556  ppm yield by 7.3% between 2021 and 2050 from the base- (2040–2069), 4.5% at 734 ppm (2070–2099) [49]. Over- −1 line of 3.5 t ha (1981–2010) [43]. In contrast, yield all analysis reveals uncertain positive and negative Ocwa et al. Agriculture & Food Security (2023) 12:14 Page 8 of 18 Eec ff t of fertilizer application on maize yield effects of increasing CO concentration on yield depict- Nutrient stress is among the key limiting factors that ing the need for continuous monitoring, assessment, curtail maize growth and yield [56, 57], and hence, and prediction. judicious fertilizer application as well as increasing Concerning temperature, a report in Canada revealed nutrient use efficiency are critical steps to addressing that rising temperature reduced yield by 41% [50]. nutrient limitation [58]. The future therefore, calls for Similarly, high-temperature stress reduced yield by better maize crop and soil fertility management as 25–32% between 2018 and 2017 in China [32]. Also, significant factors to boost yield [41]. Among the options a prediction of yield decline of up to 32% in southern include optimizing application of fertilizers through Africa between 2070 and 2099 was reported [41]. integrated soil fertility management framework to ensure The effect of temperature stress is severe during the proper utilization of limited nutrients [59], site-specific reproductive stage, since it can cause grain weight nutrient management [60–62], and use of balanced reduction by 25–32% [51]. In Africa, each 1  °C mean fertilizers [62–64]. temperature rise caused yield loss of 5–10% in 10 Nitrogen sources and application rates were the countries, but increased by < 5% in four moderately cool principal investigations undertaken. Even when organic countries [52]). In China, corn yield had a significant fertilizers were used, nitrogen was the major element negative correlation with variations in the average investigated. The dominant fertilizer sources were urea, maximum temperature (T ) during the growth max NPK, and ammonium sulfate. The yield range differed by season [31]. A 1  °C increase in T caused 14% yield max fertilizer source, rate, and nature of use (whether sole or reduction. This shows a maximum yield change of 4% −1 combined). Application of high nitrogen (120  kg  ha ) by 1  °C temperature change between China and African −1 rate in West Africa produced 1.6 t ha equivalent to 60% countries. It is also explained that temperature effect yield increment compared to the control [65]. Similarly, on maize yield varies by altitude [53]. What remains −1 −1 in Italy, application of 180  kg N ha yielded 2.7 t ha uncertain is the exact change in regional temperature −1 compared to 1.2 t ha in the control which represents rise in low and high altitudes that will affect yield and in 125% yield increment (67]. In China, yield from higher what percentage. Closely related to temperature effect on −1 −1 rates of nitrogen 168–321  kg N ha was 9.3–9.5 t ha maize yield is drought. High and very high agricultural −1 compared to 5.7 t ha in the control [67] presenting a drought hazard zones are approximated at 23.57 and 60% yield increase by higher nitrogen application rates. 27.19% of global total agricultural area [47]. In tropical −1 Accordingly, a yield difference of 14.7 and 13.5 t ha was areas, the overriding effect of climate change will be in registered in 100% and 70% nitrogen fertilization (urea) altered water balance/rainfall. It is underscored that −1 compared to the control (10.6 t ha ) [68] reflecting a increased incidence of severe drought is likely to double yield increment of 38.7 and 26.9%. Accordingly, the yield the rate of drought-induced yield losses in the prevalent −1 −1 in 100% NPK was 4.7 t ha compared to 3.0 t ha in warming scenarios [46], reducing yield by up to 33% in 50% NPK and 2.0 in the control [69]. Overall, 100% yield USA [54]. Drought and heat stress hasten soil drying, difference in NPK and urea suggests the effect of nitrogen interfere with crop water-utilization patterns, and source. Certainly, this may not be conclusive, since negatively affecting reproduction thus yield. Projection of there are other influencing factors that differ in the two maize yield is reported  to decrease and increase by 4.7 countries. and 3.5% in the fast warming-low rainfall climates and A part from rates accounting for yield increment slow warming-high rainfall regions, respectively by 2050 differences, we observed that soil type in the experimental [7]. A prediction in Uganda indicated that water balance sites affected yield response to different fertilizer sources (rainfall) will decrease yield by 11.35% between 2021 and −1 and rates. For example, 90 kg Nha under calcaric gleyic 2050. It remains unclear the pattern of water balance cambisol and ferric acrisol soil produced 1.98 and 2.3 t that will sustain grain yield. Together, it is reported that −1 ha , respectively, in Italy and Ghana [66, 70]. Comparing high CO concentration, intensive rainfall, and rising −1 a similar rate (90 kg Nha ) in in Italy and Ghana under temperature increased grain yield by 8.5% [55]. It is calcaric gleyic cambisol and ferric acrisol soil produces reported in China that enhancing maize yields required −1 a yield difference of 0.3 t ha . The low grain yield from medium temperature (14.2–14.6  °C) and precipitation −1 90 kg Nha under calcaric gleyic cambisol and ferric (628.4–649.9  mm) [23]. However, the medium acrisol depicts the need to investigate higher doses of temperatures, rainfall, and C O concentrations that nitrogen that can produce optimum yield. In Chile, enhance maize yield under changing climate in different −1 application of 200 and 400  kg  ha of urea in soils of regions remain unclear and hence require investigation. −1 alluvial origin produced 16.7 and 9.4 t ha , respectively [71]. Conversely, in China, slightly higher rate (175  kg O cwa et al. Agriculture & Food Security (2023) 12:14 Page 9 of 18 −1 −1 and 15 t ha ) combined with triple superphosphate, Nha ) under Mollisol soil produced the highest yield −1 −1 −1 dolomite (75 and 100%) was 15.17 t ha compared to of 10.8 t ha compared to 5.5 t ha in the control [72] −1 9.77 and 9.22 t ha in NPK and Control (no biochar or representing 96.4% yield increment. This shows that fertilizer), respectively [78]. This is a clear indication that yield effect by fertilizer rates varies by soil type and/ effective utilization of  biochar to sustain higher grain or location of the experiment depicting the importance yield is possible through its amendment with chemical of geographical experiment replication for purposes of fertilizers, and use of increased application rate. However, reproducibility and replicability of results. future studies could consider investigating the effect of From our synthesis, it became clear that various biochar from different materials, such as wheat straw, techniques were applied to reduce nitrogen loss and corn stems, and wood sawdust with varying NPK levels improve nitrogen use efficiency and consequently and dolomite. This widens the scope of applicability of yield. For example, in Pakistan, application of urea results since organic materials vary by physicochemical with nitrapyrin (nitrification inhibitor) and gibberellic −1 −1 properties. Conversely, integration of 25  kg Nha registered different results; 6.2 t ha in urea (200  kg −1 −1 −1 −1 (FYM) + 25 Nha (urea) + 30  kg P ha registered the N kg ha ) + nitrapyrin (700 g  ha ) + Gibberellic −1 −1 highest (46.7%) yield increase compared to the control acid (60 g  ha ), 5.3 t ha in urea (200  kg N kg −1 −1 −1 −1 [79]. Similarly, in China, a higher yield (8.2 t ha ) in ha ) + nitrapyrin (700 g  ha ), 4.5 t ha in sole urea, −1 inorganic NPK fertilizer + horse manure compared to and 4.0 t ha in the control [73]. Similarly, considerably −1 −1 sole NPK (7.2 t ha ) was recorded reflecting 1 t ha higher yield was recorded in nitrogen application −1 yield improvement [31]. Overall, this confirms the role through prilled urea (5.6 t ha ), sulfur coated (5.4 t −1 −1 of integrated fertilizer use in improving corn yield. The ha ), and neem-coated urea (5.8 t ha ) compared −1 effect of different fertilizers sources and rates on grain to 2.8 t ha in the control [74]. This shows that the yield and associated increment increments is shown in highest (107%) yield increment was recorded in nitrogen Table 4. supplied through neem-coated urea. Coating of urea The improvement of maize yield by fertilizers was not ensures slow release of nitrogen thereby lowering in isolation but in combination with other  agronomic nitrogen losses, and improving uptake in the form of practices with irrigation being the dominant (Table  5). ammonium [75]. The results reveal the possibility of A study in Spain involving nitrogen × irrigation levels combining neem-coated urea + nitrapyrin + gibberellic −1 revealed that the highest yield of 12.4 and 17.2 t ha acid to improve grain yield. Therefore, future study at 75% and 100% irrigation compared to 6.91 and 10.8 t could consider evaluating the effect of different levels of −1 −1 ha was recorded in single application of 170 kg N ha neem-coated urea + nitrapyrin + gibberellic acid on yield. of urea (with urease inhibitor) [80]. This reveals a yield Another approach to improve nutrient use efficiency is enhancement of 79.5 and 59.3% in 75 and 100% irriga- site nutrient management [60–62]. For example, specific tion interacting with nitrogen levels, respectively. What nutrient management involving nitrogen, phosphorus, remains unknown would be the yield effect if urea with and potassium (N:P2O5:K2O) had superior (6.99 t −1 −1 −1 urease inhibitor is applied at over 200 kg ha at 50–100% ha ) yield compared to farmers practice (3.8 t ha ) −1 irrigation. This is critical since potential optimum yield and control (2.9 t ha ) under maize–wheat–mungbean needs to be obtained with minimal water requirement cropping system [76]. This shows 145% yield increment due to climate change. Accordingly, nitrogen fertilizer by site-specific nutrient management due to optimum −1 rates at 120, 180, 240, and 360 kg  ha had yield ranging nutrient supply that matches crop demand. −1 −1 from 6.1 to 6.7 t ha and 8.3 to 8.5 t ha under drought Besides, application of organic materials in sole or in and non-drought water regimes [32]. This slightly depicts combination with chemical fertilizers enlisted various −1 low physiological and nitrogen utilization efficiency of effects. In China, application of biochar (20 t ha ) had −1 −1 maize under drought conditions. Similarly, in China, yield of 1.2 t ha compared to 1.1 t ha in organic −1 the highest yield (15.7 t ha ) was recorded under sur- fertilizer [32]. This is seemingly very low yield related face drip fertigation and plastic mulch + clay soil com- to quantity of biochar used. Besides, application of −1 −1 pared to 13.2 t ha in the control [47] presenting a 18.9% biochar at 30 t ha increased maize leaf chlorophyll yield increment. Conversely, the application of NPK at content (21%), photosynthetic rate by 16.5%, and yield by −1 375 kg  ha + alternative ridges-furrows + transparent 11.9% [77]. We suggest that future study could consider polyethylene film, alternative ridges-furrows + black pol- assessing the yield effect of integrating reduced rates yethylene film and conventional flat planting had yield of biochar with different levels of nitrogen and phosphorus. −1 −1 4.3, 4,3, and 2.9 t ha compared to 3.8,3.8 and 1.7 t ha This is because nitrogen and phosphorus could improve in the control, respectively [81]. Closely related to the the efficacy of biochar. Earlier, in Malaysia, it was effect of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium (NPK), the reported that the average yield from rice biochar (10 Ocwa et al. Agriculture & Food Security (2023) 12:14 Page 10 of 18 Table 4 The summary of the effect of fertilizers on maize yield (selected data) Country Soil type (experimental site) Fertilizer Yield Yield increase or  Reference decrease (% change from the control) −1 India Vertisol sandy loam texture Organic fertilizers and urea 2.1 t ha 40 [79] −1 100% RDF of N (100% RDF 2.2 t ha 46.7 −1 comprised of 60 kg ha − 1 of N and 2.1 t ha 40 −1 −1 30 kg h of P2O5.) 2.0 t ha 33.3 −1 −1 25 kg ha N (FYM) + 25 kg N 2.0 t ha 33.3 −1 −1 (Urea) + 30 kg P ha 2.1 t ha 40 −1 −1 25 kg ha N (Compost) + 25 kg N 2.3 t ha 53.3 −1 −1 (Urea) + 30 kg P ha 1.8 t ha 20 −1 −1 25 kg ha N (Crop residue) + 25 kg 1.5 t ha −1 N (Urea) + 30 kg P ha −1 15 kg ha ha N (FYM) + 10 kg N (Crop Residue) + 25 kg N −1 (Urea) + 30 kg P ha ha −1 15 kg ha N (FYM) + 10 kg N (Compost) + 25 kg N (Urea) + 30 kg −1 P ha −1 15 kg ha N (FYM) + 10 kg N (Green Leaf ) + 25 kg N (Urea) + 30 kg P −1 ha 100% recommended N (urea) −1 without P (60 kg ha of N) Control −1 West Africa (Ghana, Lixic Plinthosols, Haplic Lixisols Recommended nitrogen 1.5 t ha 50 [65] −1 −1 Benin, Burkina Faso) (60 kg ha ) 1.6 t ha 60 −1 −1 High nitrogen (120 kg ha ) 1.0 t ha Control −1 −1 Italy Calcaric gleyic cambisol 90N kg ha 1.98 t ha 65 [66] −1 −1 180 N kg ha 2.7 t ha 125 −1 Control 1.2 t ha −1 −1 Ghana Ferric acrisol Urea (90 kg N ha )2.3 ha 130 [70] −1 Plant residues1.9 ha 90 −1 Control (no fertilizer)1.0 ha −1 −1 3.78 t ha 32.6 [76] India Sandy loam in texture ( Typic N:P2O5:K2O kg ha −1 Farmer fertilizer practices 4.42 t ha 55.1 Haplustept) of Gangetic alluvial −1 (110.0:30.0:0.0) 6.99 t ha 145.3 origin −1 Recommended dose 2.85 t. ha (150.0:60.0:40.0) Site specific nutrient management (170.0:37.0:44.0) Unfertilized (110.0:30.0:0.0) −1 Ghana Sandy-loam soils Nitrogen levels (urea) 2.2 t ha 340 [89] −1 60 kg/ha 2.8 t. ha 460 −1 120 kg/ha 0.5 t ha Control −1 Malaysia Bungor ( Typic Paleudult; Order: Dolomite lime stone + Rice 15.17 t ha 64.5 [78] −1 Ultisol) biochar + TSP (Data from average of 9.77 t ha 5.97 −1 TSP and Dolomite at 75 and 100%, 9.22 t ha rice biochar from 10 and 15 t/ha) NPK recommended Control (no biochar or fertilizer) −1 −1 Italy Mesic Udertic Haplustalf soil 100% N fertilization (230 kg N ha 14.74 t ha 38.7 [68] − −1 urea) 13.49 t ha 26.9 −1 −1 70% N fertilization (160 kg N ha 10.63 t ha urea) 0% N fertilization (control) O cwa et al. Agriculture & Food Security (2023) 12:14 Page 11 of 18 Table 4 (continued) Country Soil type (experimental site) Fertilizer Yield Yield increase or  Reference decrease (% change from the control) −1 China Brown soil (clay textural class) Inorganic N fertilizer 4.54 t ha 27.9 [31] −1 Inorganic N and phosphorus (P) 6.05 t ha 70.4 −1 fertilizer 7.2 t ha 102.8 −1 Inorganic N, P, and potassium(K) 8.23 t ha 131.8 −1 fertilizer 3.55 t ha Inorganic NPK fertilizer + manure Control (Fertilizers urea, calcium superphosphate, and potassium −1 chloride; rates N 187.5 kg ha, P O 2 5 −1 −1 150 kg ha , and K O 150 kg ha , −1 horse manure 25 Mg ha ) −1 China Brown earth 100% manure 6.9 t ha Not calculated [90] −1 75% cattle manure + 25% mineral 7.2 t ha −1 nitrogen 8.1 t ha −1 50% cattle manure + 50% mineral 7.2 t ha nitrogen 100% mineral nitrogen −1 China Mollisol Farmer’s N management 250 kg N 10.7 t ha 94.5 [72] −1 −1 ha , 10.8 t ha 96.4 −1 Improved N management 175 5.5 t ha −1 kgNha applied at the basal stage −1 and 14–38 kg N ha at jointing stage Control −1 India Sandy-loam soil ( Typic Haplustept) N through prilled urea (N:P2O5:K2O 5.6 t ha 100 [74] −1 −1 kg ha 150:60:40) 5.4 t ha 92.8 −1 N through Sulfur coated urea (S) 5.8 t ha 107.1 −1 −1 (N:P2O5:K2O kg ha 150:60:40) 2.8 t ha N through Neem coated −1 urea(N:P2O5:K2O kg ha ) Control −1 −1 Taiwan Hyperthermic, udic, haplaquept, Chemical fertilizer (N 178N kg ha 13.4 t ha Not calculated [91] −1 −1 mixed, and calcareous, with a silty , P2O5 56N kg ha , K2O 60N 13.6 t ha −1 −1 loam texture kgha ) 13.4 t ha −1 Organic fertilizer (20,000 kg ha ) Integrated fertilizer (half chemical and half organic) −1 India Gangetic alluvium (Entisol) 100% recommended dose of 5.6 t ha Not calculated [92] −1 nitrogen or RD ) (chemical fertilizer) 5.7 t ha −1 25% RD (vermicompost) 5.9 t ha −1 25% RD (FYM) 6.5 t ha −1 25% RD (brassicaceousseed meal) 6.2 t ha 25% RD (neem cake) −1 China Loam, clay and sand Nitrogen levels 9.3 t ha 63.1 [67] −1 −1 168N kg ha 9.5 t ha 66.7 −1 −1 240N kg ha 9.4 t ha 64.9 −1 −1 270N kg ha 9.3 t ha 63.1 −1 −1 321N kg ha 5.7 t ha −1 Control (0 kg ha ) −1 −1 Pakastan Silt loam Urea alone (200 kg N kg ha ) 4.5 t ha 12.5 [73] −1 Urea (200 kg N kg 5.0 t ha 25 −1 −1 −1 ha ) + Gibberellic acid(60 g ha ) 5.3 t ha 32.5 −1 −1 Urea (200 kg N kg ha ) + nitrapyrin 6.2 t ha 55 −1 −1 (700 g ha ) 4.0 t ha −1 Urea(200 kg N kg ha ) + nitrapyrin −1 (700 g ha ) + Gibberellic −1 acid(60 g ha ) Control Ocwa et al. Agriculture & Food Security (2023) 12:14 Page 12 of 18 Table 4 (continued) Country Soil type (experimental site) Fertilizer Yield Yield increase or  Reference decrease (% change from the control) −1 China Black soils (luvic phaeozems), fluvo- Mineral nitrogen and phosphorous 3.99 t ha Not calculated [35] −1 aquic soils (calcaric cambisols), and fertilizer 7.4 t ha −1 loessial soils (calcaric regosol) NPK: NP + potassium 8.3 t ha −1 NP + S: NP + Straw 8.3 t ha −1 NPK + S: NPK + straw 8.2 t ha −1 Ghana Ferric luvisol Ammonium sulfate (60 kgs/ha/yr) 2.1 t ha 425 [93] −1 Ammonium sulfate (120 kgs/ha/yr) 2.3 t ha 475 −1 Urea (60 kgs/ha/yr) 2.2 t ha 450 −1 Urea (120 kgs/ha/yr) 2.3 t ha 475 −1 NPK 60–40-40 (Recommended) 2.1 t ha 425 −1 Control 0.4 t ha −1 Uganda Silty loam gleysols Farmers practice (weeded once) 1.6 t ha -50 [94] −1 Mineral fertilizer; low rate (NPK: 3.3 t ha 3.1 −1 −1 60:0:0)—130 kgha urea 5 t ha 56.3 −1 Mineral fertilizer; high rate (NPK: 3.4 t ha 6.3 −1 120:60:60)—261 urea + 130 4.2 t ha 31.3 −1 TSP + 100 Potassium chloride (KCl) 3.2 t ha Organic amendments; low rate (NPK: 60:3:35)—5929Lablab purpureus (Linnaeus) Sweet Organic amendments; low rate (NPK: 120:18:79)—5929L. purpureus + 6758 poultry manure Non-fertilized (weed free) −1 Benin Ferralitic soil 100% NPK 4.7 t ha 85 [69] −1 50% NPK 3.0 t ha 50 −1 0% NPK (control) 2.0 t ha −1 −1 China Semi-hydromorphic-fluvo-aquic- Biochar (20 t. ha ) 1.2 t ha 9.1 [32] −1 −1 salinized fluvo-aquic soil Organic fertilizer 1.35 t ha ) 1.1 t ha −1 Chile Alluvial origin (coarse loam family on Nitrogen rates (urea) 19.14 t ha 14.9 [71] −1 −1 skeletal, mixed, thermal sand of the 400 kg ha 16.66 t ha −1 Entic Haploxerolls) 200 kg ha −1 interaction between NPK levels × mycorrhiza had vary- compared to the control of 1.4 and 0.95 t ha , respec- −1 ing effect on yield; 4.7 t ha in 100% NPK + Sans CMA , tively [66], representing 128 and 131% yield improve- −1 −1 2.9 t ha Sans CMA + 50% NPK, and 1.6 t ha (Sans ment. On the other hand, a comparative assessment of CMA + 0% NPK (control) [69]. This shows 193% yield maize, finger millet, and sorghum for household food increment in 100% NPK + Sans CMA compared to the security in the face of increasing climatic risk in Zimba- −1 control. Based on a promising treatment, future studies bwe indicated that high rate of fertilizer: 90  kg N ha , −1 −1 would consider evaluating 100% NPK + Sans CMA with 26 kg P ha  and 7 t ha manure had 3.9, 3.3, and 0.6 t −1 varying level of irrigation to ascertain its potential yield. ha yield in early, normal, and late planting, respectively Besides, earlier, we reported that integrated chemical [83]. Our analysis of the yield effect between fertilizer and organic fertilizers sustain yield. Based on the prom- interaction with tillage, and planting dates without irri- −1 ising results of Sans CMA mycorrhiza, a study could be gation reveals a low yield  of  < 4 t ha . This depicts the also conducted to establish integrated effect of 100% necessity for water to ensure sustainable yield and food NPK + Sans CMA and farmyard manure on yield. production. Other practices that enhanced fertilizer effect on maize yield were seed dressing, tillage, and planting date. Interactive effect of climate change and fertilization −1 Maize grain yield increased to 2.6 t ha by mounding on maize yield −1 −1 and 60  kg N ha application as compared to 2.3 t ha Maize yield is susceptible to climate change since mete- in level tillage [82]. Similarly, a simulation of yield in a 5 orological variables control availability of resources −1 year experiment under 180 kg Nha showed that yield like, CO , water, and solar radiation that directly −1 under conventional and no tillage was 3.2 and 2.2 t ha affect maize growth and development. Countries with O cwa et al. Agriculture & Food Security (2023) 12:14 Page 13 of 18 Table 5 The summary of effect of fertilizers × other agronomic practices on maize yield (selected data) Country Soil type (experimental site) Fertilizer × agronomic practice(s) Yield Yield increase (% Reference change from the control) −1 Spain Calcic Cambisol/TypicCalcixerept Nitrogen × Irrigation levels 9.8 t ha 41.8 [80] −1 −1 170 kg N ha of urea split into two 16.7 t ha 54.6 −1 dressings (4–6 and 8 leaves) + 75% 9.8 t ha 41.8 −1 irrigation 16.1 t ha 49.1 −1 −1 170 kg N ha of urea split into two 9.6 t ha 38.9 −1 dressings (4–6 and 8 leaves) + 100% 14.2 t ha 31.5 −1 irrigation 12.4 t ha 79.5 −1 −1 170 kg N ha of urea applied at 4–6 17.2 t ha 59.3 −1 leaves + 75% irrigation 6.91 t ha −1 −1 170 kg N ha of urea applied at 4–6 10.8 t ha leaves + 100% irrigation −1 170 kg N ha of urea (with urease inhibitor) split into two dressings (4–6 and 8 leaves) + 75% irrigation −1 170 kg N ha of urea (with urease inhibitor) split into two dressings (4–6 and 8 leaves) + 100% irrigation −1 170 kg N ha of urea (with urease inhibitor) applied at 4–6 leaves + 75% irrigation −1 170 kg N ha of urea (with urease inhibitor applied at 4–6 leaves + 100% irrigation Control (no fertilizer) + 75% irrigation Control (no fertilizer) + 100% irrigation −1 Italy Calcaric gleyic cambisol Nitrogen × tillage types 2.4 t ha 71.4 [66] −1 −1 90N kg ha + conventional tillage 1.6 t ha 68.4 −1 −1 90N kg ha + no tillage 3.2 t ha 128 −1 −1 180 N kg ha + conventional tillage 2.2 t ha 131.6 −1 −1 180 N kg ha + no tillage 1.4 t ha −1 Control + conventional tillage 0.95 t ha Control + no tillage −1 Benin Ferralitic soil NPK × mycorrhiza 4.7 t ha 193 [69] −1 Sans CMA + 100% NPK 2.9 t ha 81.3 −1 Sans CMA + 50% NPK 4.2 t ha 61.5 −1 Glomus caledonius + 50% NPK 3.3 t ha 24.2 −1 Diversispora globifera + 50% NPK 3.1 t ha 29.2 −1 Acaulospora capsicula + A. 1.6 t ha −1 dilatata + 50% NPK 2.6 t ha −1 Sans CMA + 0% NPK 2.5 t ha −1 Glomus caledonius + 0% NPK 2.4 t ha Diversispora globifera + 0% NPK Acaulospora capsicula + A. dilatata + 0% NPK −1 Italy Mesic Udertic Haplustalf soil N fertilization (urea) × gypsum seed 4.5 t ha 9.7 [68] −1 dressing 3.6 t ha 12.5 −1 100% N fertilization (230 kg N 2.8 t ha 7.7 −1 −1 ha ) + gypsum seed dressing 4.1 t ha −1 70% N fertilization (160 kg N 3.2 t ha −1 −1 ha ) + gypsum seed dressing 2.6 t ha 0% N fertilization (control) + gypsum seed dressing −1 100% N fertilization (230 kg N ha ) −1 70% N fertilization (160 kg N ha ) 0% N fertilization (control) Ocwa et al. Agriculture & Food Security (2023) 12:14 Page 14 of 18 Table 5 (continued) Country Soil type (experimental site) Fertilizer × agronomic practice(s) Yield Yield increase (% Reference change from the control) −1 Kenya Sandy clay loams in texture (chromic Fertilization (NPK 1:1:1) × ridge-furrow 4.3 t ha 13.2 [81] −1 luvisols) plastic-mulching 4.3 t ha 13.2 −1 −1 375 kg ha + RFT 2.9 t ha 41.4 −1 −1 375 kg ha + RFB 4.2 t ha 10.5 −1 −1 375 kg ha + FP 4.1 t ha 7.9 −1 −1 225 ha + RFT 2.4 t ha 41.1 −1 −1 225 ha + RFB 3.8 t ha −1 −1 225 ha + FP 3.8 t ha −1 RFT (control) 1.7 t ha RFB (control) FP (control) RFT (alternative ridges-furrows with transparent polyethylene film), RFB( alternative ridges-furrows with black polyethylene film), FP (conventional flat planting) −1 China Fluvoaquic N fertilizer rates × drought stress (mean of 6.7 t ha 11.6 [32] −1 two varieties) 8.3 t ha 20.3 −1 −1 120 N kg ha + drought 6.4 t ha 6.7 −1 −1 120 N kg ha + non-drought 9.6 t ha 39.1 −1 −1 180 N kg ha + drought 6.2 t ha 3.3 −1 −1 180 N kg ha + non-drought 8.7 t ha 26.1 −1 −1 240 N kg ha + drought 6.1 t ha 1.7 −1 −1 240 N kg ha + non-drought 8.5 t ha 23.1 −1 −1 360 N kg ha + drought 6.0 t ha −1 −1 360 N kg ha + non-drought 6.9 t ha −1 0 N kg ha + drought −1 0 N kg ha + non-drought −1 Zimbabwe Granite-derived sands Fertilization rate × planting date 1.7 t ha 183 [83] −1 −1 −1 Low rate (35 kg N ha , 14 kg P ha , 3 t 3.9 t ha 550 −1 −1 ha manure) + early planting 1.9 t ha 171.4 −1 −1 −1 High rate (90 kg N ha , 26 kg P ha , 7 t 3.3 t ha 371.4 −1 −1 ha manure) + early planting 0.6 t ha 200 −1 −1 −1 Low rate (35 kg N ha , 14 kg P ha , 3 t 0.9 t ha 350 −1 −1 ha manure) + normal planting 0.6 t ha −1 −1 −1 High rate (90 kg N ha , 26 kg P ha , 7 t 0.7 t ha −1 −1 ha manure) + normal planting 0.2 t ha −1 −1 Low rate (35 kg N ha , 14 kg P ha , 3 t −1 ha manure) + late planting −1 −1 High rate (90 kg N ha , 26 kg P ha , 7 t −1 ha manure) + late planting Control/no fertilizer + early planting Control/no fertilizer + normal planting Control/no fertilizer + late planting −1 China Sandy and clay soil Drip fertigation methods (NPK) × soil type 12.0 t ha 27.7 [47] −1 Drip irrigation + sandy soil 14.8 t ha 12.1 −1 Drip irrigation + clay soil 13.2 t ha 40.4 −1 Surface drip fertigation × sandy soil 15.5 t ha 17.4 −1 Surface drip fertigation × clay soil 12.8 t ha 36.2 −1 Subsurface drip fertigation + sandy soil 14.99 t ha 13.6 −1 Subsurface drip fertigation + clay soil 13.3 t ha 41.5 −1 Surface drip fertigation and plastic 15.7 t ha 18.9 −1 mulch + sandy soil 9.4 t ha −1 Surface drip fertigation and plastic 13.2 t ha mulch + clay soil Conventional + sandy soil Conventional + clay soil better management practices are anticipated to have bet- [52] due to climate change. In fact, maize grain yield ter yields but probably more susceptible to yield losses due to sufficient nutrient supply is more sensitive to O cwa et al. Agriculture & Food Security (2023) 12:14 Page 15 of 18 climate variability [84]. Therefore, specific application questions: (i) what will be appropriate nitrogen level and adjustment of agronomic techniques matching the that can produce maximum grain yield under elevated changing climate patterns like technical fertilizer appli- CO , temperature, and reduced rainfall? (ii) What sow- cation to sustain higher maize yield in future is required ing date, irrigation level combined with nitrogen lev- [29, 52]. Temperature increase by 1  °C is reported to els produces maximum grain yield under elevated CO , reduce maize yield by 2.6% though with slight increase in temperature, and reduced rainfall? (iii) What will be the some areas depending of nutrient management [86]. Spe- exact grain yield reduction (sensitivity) by nitrogen levels cifically, nitrogen fertilization is reported to control the under elevated CO , temperature, and reduced/increased reaction of maize grain yield to variations in temperature, precipitation? rainfall, and CO [53]. It is projected that fertilizer use under elevated C O concentration will increase yield by Conclusions 9% between 2021 and 2050 [43]. However, reduction in This bibliographic review was carried out to analyse yield by 14 and 26% due to increased temperature with the interaction between maize yield, fertilization, and −1 application of 0 and 160 kgNha was reported in sub- climate change. General synthesis of literature on climate Saharan Africa [53]. The same report shows that a 4  °C and fertilizer effects reveal interesting results: a 1–4  °C rise in temperature had less effect on grain yield at 80 temperature rise will decrease and increase yield by −1 and 160 kgNha . Accordingly, yield reduced by > 10% 5–14% and < 5% in warm and cold areas, respectively, for 1  °C temperature rise in areas with soil total nitro- precipitation reduction will decrease yield by 25–32% −1 −1 gen < 1.10  g  kg but, increased when > 1.33  g  kg while CO concentration will increase and decrease depicting nitrogen to contribute to the resilience of maize yield by 2.4 to 7.3% and 9 to 14.6% between 2030 and grown in summer warming [86]. Consequently, nitro- 2099. A promising fertilizer was a combination of gen application improved grain yield by 5.4 and 26.8% urea + nitrapyrin with an average yield of 5.1 and 14.4 −1 in the dry and wet years, respectively [53]. Low yield t ha under irrigation and non-irrigation. A 90  kg −1 increase in dry year was attributed to the fact that high Nha application under calcaric gleyic cambisol and −1 nitrogen application increased the leaf area and transpi- ferric acrisol soil had low (1.98–2.3 t ha ) yield in all ration rates, and caused curling of maize leaves hence countries. Fertilization under climate change will reduce decreasing photosynthesis. Conversely, temperature yield by an average of 10.5–18.3% by 2099. This signifies rise and precipitation decrease were simulated to cause that a part from judicious fertilizer intensification in −1 yield change of 2.78 to 9.94% in 55.2 kgNha , − 3.81% maize production, there is need for integrated agronomic −1 to − 8.88% in 110.4 kgNha , and − 2.33% to 10.63% research that combines fertilizers and other enhancing −1 in 165.6 kgNha as influence by sowing dates for technologies if optimum yield and maize contribution to 2040–2069/1980–2010 [87]. Increase in fertilizer rates food security are to be attained under climate change. decreased yield, implying that increasing fertilizer rates only do not address the  effects of climate on yield. This Author contributions suggests need for broader agronomic research integrat- Literature search, data analysis, and drafting the first manuscript: AO; critical ing fertilizers, sowing dates, and irrigation, since pre- review: EH, AS, IJH, SS, and TR; conceptualization and methodology, SM. All cipitation was predicted to decrease. Because earlier authors read and approved the final manuscript. projections under climate change revealed that high Funding fertilizer rate and late sowing would decrease yield by Open access funding provided by University of Debrecen. Also, support from 13 and 20% for the periods 2010–2069 and 2070–2099 Project no. TKP2021-NKTA-32 implemented with the support provided by the Ministry of Innovation and Technology of Hungary from the National [41]. Contradictory, a recent prediction indicated that Research, Development, and Innovation Fund financed under the TKP2021- soil fertility under climate change  will increase yield by NKTA funding scheme. 19.6% between 2021 and 2050 from the baseline of 3.5 t −1 Availability of data and materials ha (1981–2010) [43]. Interestingly, another simulation All data analysed during this study are included in this article. revealed a reduction in grain yield by 10–46% between 2080 and 2099 irrespective of soil fertility and crop man- Declarations agement. In fact, yield will decrease by an average of 2.8 −1 −1 t ha in intensive mineral fertilizer use and 2.7 t ha in Ethics approval and consent to participate This section is not applicable. integrated soil-crop management relative to the baseline −1 of 3.7 and 3.3 t ha (1986–2005) due to climate change Consent for publication [88]. Synthesizing the above results reveals that fertiliza- This section is not applicable. tion especially with nitrogen under climate change will reduce yield by year 2099. Hence, this raises the following Ocwa et al. Agriculture & Food Security (2023) 12:14 Page 16 of 18 Competing interests 14. Komarek AM, Thurlow J, Koo J, De Pinto A. Economywide effects of The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the climate-smart agriculture in Ethiopia. Agric Econ. 2019;50(6):765–78. content of this article.https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ agec. 12523. 15. Renwick LLR, Kimaro AA, Hafner JM, Rosenstock TS, Gaudin ACM. Maize- Author details Pigeonpea intercropping outperforms monocultures under drought. Institute of Land Use, Engineering and Precision Farming Technology, Front Sustain Food Syst. 2020;4:562663. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fsufs. Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences and Environmental Management, 2020. 562663. University of Debrecen, 138 Böszörményi Street, 4032 Debrecen, Hungary. 16. Madembo C, Mhlanga B, Thierfelder C. Productivity or stability? Exploring Department of Agriculture Production, Faculty of Agriculture, Kyambogo maize-legume intercropping strategies for smallholder Conservation University, Kyambogo, P. O. B. 1, Kampala, Uganda. Eötvös Loránd Research Agriculture farmers in Zimbabwe. Agricul Syst. 2020;185:102921. https:// Network (ELKH), Centre for Agricultural Research, Budapest, Hungary. doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agsy. 2020. 102921. Institute of Horticulture, University of Debrecen, 138 Böszörményi 17. Martinez MJ, Furst C. Simulating the capacity of rainfed food crop spe- Street, 4032 Debrecen, Hungary. Department of Physical Geography cies to meet social demands in sudanian savanna agro-ecologies. Land. and Geoinformatics, Faculty of Science and Technology, University 2021;10(8):827. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ land1 00808 27. of Debrecen, 4032 Debrecen, Hungary. 18. Shiferaw B, Prasanna BM, Hellin J, et al. Crops that feed the world 6 Past successes and future challenges to the role played by maize in Received: 9 August 2022 Accepted: 3 April 2023 global food security. Food Sec. 2011;3:307. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12571- 011- 0140-5. 19. Ranum P, Peña-Rosas JP, Garcia-Casal MN. Global maize production, uti- lization, and consumption. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2014;1312:105–12. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ nyas. 12396. 20. Chukwudi UP, Kutu FR, Mavengahama S. Influence of heat stress, varia- References tions in soil type, and soil amendment on the growth of three drought- 1. Roxburgh CW, Rodriguez D. Ex-ante analysis of opportunities for the tolerant maize varieties. Agronomy-Basel. 2021;11(8):1485. https:// doi. sustainable intensification of maize production in Mozambique. Agric org/ 10. 3390/ agron omy11 081485. Syst. 2016;142:9–22. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agsy. 2015. 10. 010. 21. Erenstein O, Jaleta M, Sonder K, Mottaleb K, Prasanna BM. Global maize 2. Choruma D, Balkovic J, Odume ON. Calibration and validation of the EPIC production, consumption and trade: trends and R&D implication. Food model for maize production in the Eastern Cape. South Africa Agronomy- Secur. 2022;4:1295–319. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12571- 022- 01288-7. Basel. 2019;9(9):1–16. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ agron omy90 90494. 22. Grote U, Fasse A, Nguyen TT, Erenstein O. Food security and the dynamics 3. Jat SL, Parihar CM, Singh AK, Kumar B, Choudhary M, Nayak HS, Parihar of wheat and maize value chains in Africa and Asia. Front Sustain Food MD, Parihar N, Meena BR. Energy auditing and carbon footprint under Syst. 2021;4:617009. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fsufs. 2020. 617009. long-term conservation agriculture-based intensive maize systems 23. Chen HX, Zhao Y, Feng H, Li HJ, Sun BH. Assessment of climate change with diverse inorganic nitrogen management options. Sci Total Environ. impacts on soil organic carbon and crop yield based on long-term fertili- 2019;664:659–68. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. scito tenv. 2019. 01. 425. zation applications in Loess Plateau, China. Plant Soil. 2015;390(1–2):401– 4. Doraiswamy PC, McCarty GW, Hunt ER, Yost RS, Doumbia M, Franzlueb- 17. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11104- 014- 2332-1. bers AJ. Modeling soil carbon sequestration in agricultural lands of Mali. 24. Ngugi LW, Rao KPC, Oyoo A, Kwena K. Opportunities for coping with Agric Syst. 2007;94(1):63–74. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agsy. 2005. 09. 011. climate change and variability through adoption of soil and water con- 5. Subedi R, Bhatta LD, Udas E, Agrawal NK, Joshi KD, Panday D. Climate- servation technologies in semi-arid Eastern Kenya. In: Adapting African smart practices for improvement of crop yields in mid-hills of Nepal. Agriculture to Climate Change: Transforming Rural Livelihoods. 2015. p. Cogent Food Agric. 2019;5(1):1631026. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 23311 932. 149–157. 2019. 16310 26. 25. Steward PR, Dougill AJ, Thierfelder C, Pittelkow CM, Stringer LC, Kudzala 6. Cao Q, Miao Y, Feng G, Gao X, Liu B, Liu Y, Li F, Khosla R, Mulla DJ, Zhang M, Shackelford GE. The adaptive capacity of maize-based conservation F. Improving nitrogen use efficiency with minimal environmental risks agriculture systems to climate stress in tropical and subtropical environ- using an active canopy sensor in a wheat-maize cropping system. Field ments: A meta-regression of yields. Agr Ecosyst Environ. 2018;251:194– Crop Res. 2017;214:365–72. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. fcr. 2017. 09. 033. 202. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agee. 2017. 09. 019. 7. Kikoyo DA, Nobert J. Assessment of impact of climate change and 26. Nwaogu C, Kassahun T, Eneche PUS. Climate change induced soil com- adaptation strategies on maize production in Uganda. Phys Chem Earth. paction: evaluating the adaptation measures to enhance maize yields 2016;93:37–45. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. pce. 2015. 09. 005. in a tropical humid acidic soil, Nigeria. In: climate change, hazards and 8. Huffman WE, Jin C, Xu Z. The economic impacts of technology and adaptation options: handling the impacts of a changing climate. Springer climate change: new evidence from US corn yields. Agric Econ. International Publishing AG, 2020;717–739. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978- 2018;49(4):463–79. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ agec. 12429. 3- 030- 37425-9_ 36. 9. Hauggaard-Nielsen H, Johansen A, Carter MS, Ambus P, Jensen ES. 27. Chen ZM, Xu YH, He Y, Zhou XH, Fan JL, Yu H, Ding WX. Nitrogen fertiliza- Annual maize and perennial grass-clover strip cropping for increased tion stimulated soil heterotrophic but not autotrophic respiration in resource use efficiency and productivity using organic farming practice cropland soils: A greater role of organic over inorganic fertilizer. Soil Biol as a model. Eur J Agron. 2013;47:55–64. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. eja. 2013. Biochem. 2018;116:253–64. 01. 004. 28. Bortoletto-Santos R, Cavigelli MA, Montes SE, Schomberg HH, Thompson 10. Syswerda SP, Robertson GP. Ecosystem services along a management A, Kramer AI, Polito M, Ribeiro C. Oil-based polyurethane-coated urea gradient in Michigan (USA) cropping systems. Agr Ecosyst Environ. reduces nitrous oxide emissions in a corn field in a Maryland loamy sand 2014;189:28–35. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agee. 2014. 03. 006. soil. J Cleaner Product. 2020;249:1–8. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jclep ro. 11. Srinivasarao C, Lal R, Kundu S, Babu MBBP, Venkateswarlu B, Singh AK. Soil 2019. 119329. carbon sequestration in rainfed production systems in the semiarid trop- 29. Zhang JT, Yang J, An PL, Ren W, Pan ZH, Dong ZQ, Han GL, Pan YY, Pan ics of India. Sci Total Environ. 2014;487:587–603. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. SF, Tian HQ. Enhancing soil drought induced by climate change and scito tenv. 2013. 10. 006. agricultural practices: Observational and experimental evidence from 12. Rurinda J, van Wijk MT, Mapfumo P, Descheemaeker K, Supit I, Giller KE. the semiarid area of northern China. Agric For Meteorol. 2017;243:74–83. Climate change and maize yield in southern Africa: what can farm man- https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agrfo rmet. 2017. 05. 008. agement do? Glob Change Biol. 2015;21(12):4588–601. https:// doi. org/ 30. Freduah BS, MacCarthy DS, Adam M, Ly M, Ruane AC, Timpong-Jones 10. 1111/ gcb. 13061. EC, Traore PS, Boote KJ, Porter C, Adiku SGK. Sensitivity of maize yield 13. Guardia G, Aguilera E, Vallejo A, Sanz-Cobena A, Alonso-Ayuso M, Que- in smallholder systems to climate scenarios in semi-arid regions of mada M. Eec ff tive climate change mitigation through cover cropping West Africa: accounting for variability in farm management practices, and integrated fertilization: A global warming potential assessment from Agronomy-Basel. 2019;9(10):639. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ agron omy91 a 10-year field experiment. J Cleaner Prod. 2019;241:118307. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jclep ro. 2019. 118307. O cwa et al. Agriculture & Food Security (2023) 12:14 Page 17 of 18 31. Liu P, Zhao HJ, Li Y, Liu ZH, Gao XH, Zhang YP, Sun M, Zhong ZW, Luo JF. uncertainties for maize in Panama: Farm information, climate projections, Corn yields with organic and inorganic amendments under changing and yield sensitivities. Agric For Meteorol. 2013;170:132–45. https:// doi. climate. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst. 2018;111(2–3):141–53. https:// doi. org/ 10. org/ 10. 1016/j. agrfo rmet. 2011. 10. 015. 1007/ s10705- 018- 9916-8. 50. He W, Yang JY, Qian B, Drury CF, Hoogenboom G, He P, Lapen D, Zhou 32. Wang Y, Huang YF, Fu W, Guo WQ, Ren N, Zhao YN, Ye YL. Efficient W. Climate change impacts on crop yield, soil water balance and nitrate physiological and nutrient use efficiency responses of maize leaves to leaching in the semiarid and humid regions of Canada. PLoS ONE. drought stress under different field nitrogen conditions. Agronomy. 2018;3(11):e0207370. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1371/ journ al. pone. 02073 70. 2020;10(4):523. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ agron omy10 040523. 51. Wang XL, Yan Y, Xu CC, Wang XY, Luo N, Wei D, Meng QF, Wang P. 33. Xie M, Tremblay N, Trembla G, Bourgeois G, Bouroubi MY, Wei Z. Weather Mitigating heat impacts in maize (Zea mays L) during the reproduc- effects on corn response to in-season nitrogen rates. Can J Plant Sci. tive stage through biochar soil amendment. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2013;93(3):407–17. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4141/ cjps2 012- 145. 2021;311:107321. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agee. 2021. 107321. 34. Gao WL, Man XM. Evaluation of the agronomic impacts on yield-scaled 52. Shi WJ, Tao FL. Vulnerability of African maize yield to climate change and N2O emission from wheat and maize fields in China. Sustainability variability during 1961–2010. Food Security. 2014;6(4):471–81. https:// doi. 2017;9(7):1201. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su907 1201.org/ 10. 1007/ s12571- 014- 0370-4. 35. Berhane M, Xu M, Liang ZY, Shi JL, Wei GH, Tian XH. Eec ff ts of long- 53. Falconnier GN, Corbeels M, Boote KJ, Affholder F, Adam M, MacCarthy DS, term straw return on soil organic carbon storage and sequestration Ruane AC, Nendel C, Whitbread AM, Justes E, Ahuja LR, Akinseye FM, Alou rate in North China upland crops: a meta-analysis. Global Change Biol. IN, Amouzou KA, Anapalli SS, Baron C, Basso B, Baudron F, Bertuzzi P, Chal- 2020;26(4):2686–2701. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ gcb. 15018 linor AJ, Chen Y, Deryng D, Elsayed ML, Faye B, Gaiser T, Galdos M, Gayler 36. Diacono M, Montemurro F. Long-term effects of organic amendments on S, Gerardeaux E, Giner M, Grant B, Hoogenboom G, Ibrahim ES, Kamali B, soil fertility. A review. Agron Sustain Develop. 2010;30(2):401–22. https:// Kersebaum KC, Kim SH, van der Laan M, Leroux L, Lizaso JI, Maestrini B, doi. org/ 10. 1051/ agro/ 20090 40. Meier EA, Mequanint F, Ndoli A, Porter CH, Priesack E, Ripoche D, Sida TS, 37. Leitner S, Pelster DE, Werner C, Merbold L, Baggs EM, Mapanda F, Butter- Singh U, Smith WN, Srivastava A, Sinha S, Tao FL, Thorburn PJ, Timlin D, bach-Bahl K. Closing maize yield gaps in sub-Saharan Africa will boost soil Traore B, Twine T, Webber H. Modelling climate change impacts on maize N O emissions. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2020;47:95–105. https:// doi. yields under low nitrogen input conditions in sub-Saharan Africa. Global org/ 10. 1016/j. cosust. 2020. 08. 018. Change Biol. 2020;26(10):942–5964. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ gcb. 15261. 38. Muller C, Elliott J, Pugh TAM, Ruane AC, Ciais P, Balkovic J, Deryng D, 54. Hunter MC, Kemanian AR, Mortensen DA. Cover crop effects on maize Folberth C, Izaurralde RC, Jones CD, Khabarov N, Lawrence P, Liu W, Reddy drought stress and yield. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2021;311:107294. https:// AD, Schmid E, Wang XH. Global patterns of crop yield stability under doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agee. 2020. 107294. additional nutrient and water inputs. PLoSONE. 2018. https:// doi. org/ 10. 55. Liang S, Li YF, Zhang XB, Sun ZG, Sun N, Duan YH, Xu MG, Wu LH. Response 1371/ journ al. pone. 01987 48. of crop yield and nitrogen use efficiency for wheat-maize cropping 39. Schut AGT, Traore PCS, Blaes X. Assessing yield and fertilizer response in system to future climate change in northern China. Agric For Meteorol. heterogeneous smallholder fields with UAVs and satellites. Field Crops 2018;262:310–21. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agrfo rmet. 2018. 07. 019. Res. 2018;221:98–107. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. fcr. 2018. 02. 018. 56. Hurisso TT, Davis JG, Chala A, Getachew A, Wolde-Meskel E. Impacts of 40. Verdi L, Mancini M, Napoli M, Vivoli R, Pardini A, Orlandini S, Dalla MA. Soil grinding and acidification of animal bones with coffee wastewater on plant carbon emissions from maize under different fertilization methods in an dry matter yield and recovery of phosphorus. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal. extremely dry summer in Italy. Italian J Agrometeorol Rivista Italiana Di 2021;52(10):1076–88. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00103 624. 2021. 18726 03. Agrometeorol. 2019; 24(2): 3–10. https:// doi. org/ 10. 13128/ ijam- 648 57. Racz D, Szoke L, Toth B, Kovacs B, Horvath E, Zagyi P, Duzs L. Szeles 41. Rurinda J, Mapfumo P, van Wijk MT, Mtambanengwe F, Rufino MC, AExamination of the productivity and physiological responses of Chikowo R, Giller KE. Managing soil fertility to adapt to rainfall vari- maize (Zea mays L) to Nitrapyrin and Foliar Fertilizer Treatments. Plants. ability in smallholder cropping systems in Zimbabwe. Field Crop Res. 2021;10(11):2426. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ plant s1011 2426. 2013;154:211–25. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. fcr. 2013. 08. 012. 58. Ren H, Li ZH, Cheng Y, Zhang JB, Liu P, Li RF, Yang QL, Dong ST, Zhang 42. Nezomba H, Mtambanengwe F, Rurinda J, Mapfumo P. Integrated soil JW, Zhao B. Narrowing Yield Gaps and Enhancing Nitrogen Utilization fertility management sequences for reducing climate risk in small- for Summer Maize (Zea mays L) by Combining the Eec ff ts of Varying holder crop production systems in southern Africa. Field Crop Res. Nitrogen Fertilizer Input and Planting Density in DSSAT Simulations. Front 2018;224:102–14. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. fcr. 2018. 05. 003. Plant Sci. 2020;11:560466. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpls. 2020. 560466. 43. Muluneh A. Impact of climate change on soil water balance, maize pro- 59. Tovihoudji PG, Akponikpe PBI, Adjogboto A, Djenontin JA, Agbossou duction, and potential adaptation measures in the rift valley drylands of EK, Bielders CL. Combining hill-placed manure and mineral fertilizer Ethiopia. J Arid Environ. 2020;179:104195. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jarid enhances maize productivity and profitability in northern Benin. env. 2020. 104195. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst. 2018;110(3):375–93. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 44. Munch T, Berg M, Mirschel W, Wieland R, Nendel C. Considering cost s10705- 017- 9872-8. accountancy items in crop production simulations under climate change. 60. Saleh GB, Min TD, Noordin WD, Halim RA, Anuar AR. Spatial variability of Eur J Agron. 2014;52:57–68. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. eja. 2013. 01. 005. soil and plant nutrients and their influence on maize grain yield. J Food 45. Li HD, Shi WJ, Wang B, An TT, Li S, Li SY, Wang JK. Comparison of the mod- Agric Environ. 2010;8(3–4):1313–25. eled potential yield versus the actual yield of maize in Northeast China 61. Jat RD, Jat HS, Nanwal RK, Yadav AK, Bana A, Choudhary KM, Kakraliya SK, and the implications for national food security. Food Secur. 2017;9(1):99– Sutaliya JM, Sapkota TB, Jat ML. Conservation agriculture and precision 114. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12571- 016- 0632-4. nutrient management practices in maize-wheat system: Eec ff ts on 46. Yu CQ, Huang X, Chen H, Huang GR, Ni SQ, Wright JS, Hall J, Ciais P, Zhang J, crop and water productivity and economic profitability. Field Crop Res. Xiao YC, Sun ZL, Wang XH, Yu L. Assessing the impacts of extreme agricul- 2018;222:111–20. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. fcr. 2018. 03. 025. tural droughts in china under climate and socioeconomic changes. Earths 62. Sapkota TB, Jat ML, Rana DS, Khatri-Chhetri A, Jat HS, Bijarniya D, Sutaliya Fut. 2018;6(5):689–703. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ 2017E F0007 68. JM, Kumar M, Singh LK, Jat RK, Kalvaniya K, Prasad G, Sidhu HS, Rai M, 47. Wu DL, Xu XX, Chen YL, Shao H, Sokolowski E, Mi GH. Eec ff t of different Satyanarayana T. Majumdar K Crop nutrient management using Nutrient drip fertigation methods on maize yield, nutrient and water productiv- Expert improves yield, increases farmers’ income and reduces green- ity in two-soils in Northeast China. Agric Water Manag. 2019;13:200–11. house gas emissions. Sci Rep. 2021;11:1564. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agwat. 2018. 10. 018.s41598- 020- 79883-x. 48. Saddique Q, Cai HJ, Xu JT, Ajaz A, He JQ, Yu Q, Wang YF, Chen H, Khan 63. Waqas MA, Li Y, Lal R, Wang XH, Sh SW, Zhu YC, Li JL, Xu MG, Wan YF, Qin MI, Liu DL, He L. Analyzing adaptation strategies for maize produc- XB, Gao QZ, Liu S. When does nutrient management sequester more tion under future climate change in Guanzhong Plain, China. Mitig carbon in soils and produce high and stable grain yields in China? Land Adapt Strat Glob Change. 2020;63(6):1879–93. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ Degrad Dev. 2020;31(15):1926–41. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ ldr. 3567. s11027- 020- 09935-0. 64. Waqas M.A, Li Y, Smith P, Wang XH, Ashraf MN, Noor MA, Amou M, Shi 49. Ruane AC, Cecil LD, Horton RM, Gordon R, McCollum R, Brown D, Kil- SW, Zhu YC, Li JL, Wan YF, Qin XB, Gao QZ, Liu S. The influence of nutrient lough B, Goldberg R, Greeley AP, Rosenzweig C. Climate change impact management on soil organic carbon storage, crop production, and yield Ocwa et al. Agriculture & Food Security (2023) 12:14 Page 18 of 18 stability varies under different climates. J Cleaner Prod. 2020;268:121922. 80. Allende-Montalban R, Martin-Lammerding D, Delgado MD, Porcel MA, https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jclep ro. 2020. 121922. Gabriel JL. Urease inhibitors effects on the nitrogen use efficiency in a 65. Danso I, Webber H, Bourgault M, Ewert F, Naab JB, Gaiser T. Crop manage- maize-wheat rotation with or without water deficit. Agriculture-Basel. ment adaptations to improve and stabilize crop yields under low-yielding 2021;11(7):1–19. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ agric ultur e1107 0684. conditions in the Sudan Savanna of West Africa. Eur J Agron. 2018;101:1– 81. Mo F, Wang JY, Zhou H, Luo CL, Zhang, XF, Li XY, Li FM, Xiong LB, Kavagi 9. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. eja. 2018. 08. 001. L, Nguluu SN, Xiong YC. Ridge-furrow plastic-mulching with balanced 66. De Sanctis G, Roggero PP, Seddaiu G, Orsini R, Porter CH, Jones JW. Long- fertilization in rainfed maize (Zea mays L.): An adaptive management in term no tillage increased soil organic carbon content of rain-fed cereal East African Plateau. J Environ Manag. 2017;236:100–12. https:// doi. org/ systems in a Mediterranean area. Eur J Agron. 2012;40:18–27. https:// doi. 10. 1016/j. agrfo rmet. 2017. 01. 014. org/ 10. 1016/j. eja. 2012. 02. 002. 82. Belcher K, Boehm M, Fulton M. An agroecosystem scale evaluation of 67. Feng XM, Gao HJ, La, R, Zhu P, Peng C, Deng AX, Zheng CY, Song ZW, the sustainability implications of carbon tax and carbon credit policies. J Zhang WJ. Nitrous oxide emission, global warming potential, and denitri- Sustain Agric. 2003;22(2):75–97. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1300/ J064v 22n02_ 06. fier abundances as affected by long-term fertilization on Mollisols of 83. Rurinda J, Mapfumo P, van Wijk MT, Mtambanengwe F, Rufino MC, Northeastern China. Archives Agron Soil Sci. 2019;65(13):1831–44. https:// Chikowo R, Giller KE. Comparative assessment of maize, finger millet and doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03650 340. 2019. 15789 59. sorghum for household food security in the face of increasing climatic 68. Maris SC, Capra F, Ardenti F, Chiodini ME, Boselli R, Taskin E, Puglisi E, risk. Eur J Agron. 2014;55:2941. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. eja. 2013. 12. 009. Bertora C, Poggianella L, Amaducci S, Tabaglio V, Fiorini A. Reducing N fer- 84. Gornott C, Hattermann F, Wechsung F. Yield gap analysis for Tanzania tilization without yield penalties in maize with a commercially available - The impacts of climate, management and socio-economic impacts seed dressing. Agronomy. 2021;11(3):407. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ agron on maize yields. Agriculture and Climate Change - Adapting Crops to omy11 030407. Increased Uncertainty Agri. 2015;29:231–231. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. 69. Aguegue MR, Adjovi NRA, Agbodjato NA, Noumavo PA, Assogba S, Salami proenv. 2015. 07. 287. H, SalakoVK, Ramon R, Baba-Moussa F, Adjanohoun A, Kakai RG, Baba- 85. Zhang JT, Yang J, An PL, Ren W, Pan ZH, Dong ZQ, Han GL, Pan YY, Pan moussa L. Efficacy of native strains of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on SF, Tian HQ. Enhancing soil drought induced by climate change and maize productivity on ferralitic soil in Benin. Agric Res. 2021. https:// doi. agricultural practices: Observational and experimental evidence from the org/ 10. 1007/ s40003- 021- 00602-7. semiarid area of northern China. Agric Forest Meteor. 2017;243:74–83. 70. Partey ST, Thevathasan NV, Zougmore RB, Preziosi RF. Improving maize https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agrfo rmet. 2017. 05. 008. production through nitrogen supply from ten rarely-used organic 86. Deng X, Huang Y, Qin ZC. Soil indigenous nutrients increase the resources in Ghana. Agrofor Syst. 2018;92(2):375–87. https:// doi. org/ 10. resilience of maize yield to climatic warming in China. Environ Res Lett. 1007/ s10457- 016- 0035-8. 2020;15(9):1–11. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1088/ 1748- 9326/ aba4c8. 71. Salazar O, Diaz R, Nario A, Videla X, Alonso-Ayuso M, Quemada M. 87. Chisanga CB, Phiri E, Chinene VRN, Chabala LM. Projecting maize yield Nitrogen fertilizer efficiency determined by the n-15 dilution technique under local-scale climate change scenarios using crop models: Sensitivity in maize followed or not by a cover crop in Mediterranean Chile. Agricul- to sowing dates, cultivar, and nitrogen fertilizer rates. Food Energy Secur. ture. 2021;11(8):721. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ agric ultur e1108 0721. 2020;9(4):1–17. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ fes3. 231. 72. Yan L, Zhang ZD, Zhang JJ, Gao Q, Feng GZ, Abelrahman AM, Chen 88. Amouzou KA, Lamers JPA, Naab JB, Borgemeister C, Vlek PLG, Becker Y. Eec ff ts of improving nitrogen management on nitrogen utilization, M. Climate change impact on water- and nitrogen-use efficiencies and nitrogen balance, and reactive nitrogen losses in a Mollisol with maize yields of maize and sorghum in the northern Benin dry savanna. Field monoculture in Northeast China. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2016;23(5):4576– Crop Res. 2019;235:104–17. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. fcr. 2019. 02. 021. 84. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11356- 015- 5684-z. 89. Naab JB, Mahama GY, Koo J, Jones JW, Boote KJ. Nitrogen and phospho- 73. Dawar K, Sardar K, Zaman M, Muller C, Sanz-Cobena A, Khan A, Borzouei rus fertilization with crop residue retention enhances crop productivity, A. Perez-Castillo AGEec ff ts of the nitrification inhibitor nitrapyrin and soil organic carbon, and total soil nitrogen concentrations in sandy-loam the plant growth regulator gibberellic acid on yield-scale nitrous oxide soils in Ghana. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst. 2015;102(1):33–43. https:// doi. org/ emission in maize fields under hot climatic conditions. Pedosphere. 10. 1007/ s10705- 015- 9675-8. 2021;31(2):323–31. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S1002- 0160(20) 60076-5. 90. Liu HT, Li J, Li X, Zheng YH, Feng SF, Jiang GM. Mitigating greenhouse 74. Jat SL, Parihar CM, Singh AK, Nayak HS, Meena BR, Kumar B, Parihar MD, gas emissions through replacement of chemical fertilizer with organic Jat ML. Differential response from nitrogen sources with and without manure in a temperate farmland. Science Bulletin. 2015;60(6):598–606. residue management under conservation agriculture on crop yields, https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11434- 014- 0679-6. water-use and economics in maize-based rotations. Field Crop Res. 91. Hou PF, Chang Y T, Lai JM, Chou KL, Tai SF, Tseng KC, Chow CN, Jeng 2019;236:96–110. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. fcr. 2019. 03. 017. SL, Huang HJ, Chang WC. Long-term effects of fertilizers with regional 75. Guo JJ, Fan JL, Xiang YZ, Zhang FC, Zheng J, Yan S, Yan FL, Hou XH, Li YP, climate variability on yield trends of sweet corn. Sustainability. Yang L. Eec ff ts of nitrogen type on rainfed maize nutrient uptake and grain 2020;12(9):3528. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su120 93528. yield. Agron J. 2021;113(6):5454–71. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ agj2. 20811. 92. Ghosh D, Brahmachari K, Das A, Hassan MM, Mukherjee PK, Sarkar S, 76. Parihar CM, Jat SL, Singh AK, Ghosh A, Rathore NS, Kumar B, Pradhan S, Dinda NK, Pramanick B, Moulick D, Maitra S, Hossain A. Assessment of Majumdar K, Satyanarayana T, Jat ML, Saharawat YS, Kuri BR, Saveipune D. energy budgeting and its indicator for sustainable nutrient and weed Eec ff ts of precision conservation agriculture in a maize-wheat-mungbean management in a rice-maize-green gram cropping system. Agronomy. rotation on crop yield, water-use and radiation conversion under a 2021;11(1):166. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ agron omy11 010166. semiarid agro-ecosystem. Agric Water Manag. 2017;192:306–19. https:// 93. Atakora WK, Kwakye K, Weymann D, Bruggemann N. Stimulus of nitrogen doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agwat. 2017. 07. 021. fertilizers and soil characteristics on maize yield and nitrous oxide emis- 77. Feng WY, Yang F, Cen R, Liu J, Qu ZY, Miao QF, Chen HY. Eec ff ts of straw biochar sion from Ferric Luvisol in the Guinea Savanna agro-ecological zone of application on soil temperature, available nitrogen and growth of corn. J Environ Ghana. Sci Afr. 2019;6:1–11. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. sciaf. 2019. e00141. Manag. 2021;277:111331. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jenvm an. 2020. 111331. 94. Alibu S, Neuhoff D, Senthilkumar K, Becker M, Kopke U. Potential of culti- 78. Mosharrof M, Uddin MK, Sulaiman MF, Mia S, Shamsuzzaman SM, Haque vating dry season maize along a hydrological gradient of an inland valley ANA. Combined Application of Rice Husk Biochar and Lime Increases in Uganda. Agronomy-Basel. 2019;9(10):1–12. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ Phosphorus Availability and Maize Yield in an Acidic Soil. Agriculture. agron omy91 00606. 2021;11(8):793. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ agric ultur e1108 0793. 79. Srinivasarao C, Kundu S, Kumpawat BS, Kothari AK, Sodani SN, Sharma SK, Publisher’s Note Abrol V, Chary GR, Thakur PB, Yashavanth BS. Soil organic carbon dynam- Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in ics crop yields of maize (Zea mays)-black gram (Vigna mungo) rotation- published maps and institutional affiliations. based long term manurial experimental system in semi-arid Vertisols of western India. Trop Ecol. 2019;60(3):433–46. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s42965- 019- 00044-x. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Agriculture & Food Security Springer Journals

A bibliographic review of climate change and fertilization as the main drivers of maize yield: implications for food security

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/a-bibliographic-review-of-climate-change-and-fertilization-as-the-main-WFu54BZyOC

References (95)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2023
eISSN
2048-7010
DOI
10.1186/s40066-023-00419-3
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Introduction Crop production contribution to food security faces unprecedented challenge of increasing human population. This is due to the decline in major cereal crop yields including maize resulting from climate change and declining soil infertility. Changes in soil nutrient status and climate have continued to occur and in response, new fertilizer recommendations in terms of formulations and application rates are continuously developed and applied globally. In this sense, this review was conducted to: (i) identify the key areas of concentration of research on fertilizer and climate change effect on maize grain yield, (ii) assess the extent of the effect of climate change on maize grain yield, (iii) evaluate the extent of the effect of fertilization practices on maize grain yield, and (iv) examine the effect of interaction between climate change factors and fertilization practices on maize grain yield at global perspective. Methodology Comprehensive search of global literature was conducted in Web of Science ( WoS) database. For objective 1, metadata on co-authorship (country, organisation), and co-occurrence of keywords were exported and analysed using VOSviewer software. For objective 2–4, yield data for each treatment presented in the articles were extracted and yield increment calculated. Results The most significant keywords: soil fertility, nutrient use efficiency, nitrogen use efficiency, integrated nutrient management, sustainability, and climate change adaptation revealed efforts to improve maize production, achieve food security, and protect the environment. A temperature rise of 1–4 °C decreased yield by 5–14% in warm areas and increased by < 5% in cold areas globally. Precipitation reduction decreased yield by 25–32%, while C O concentration increased and decreased yield by 2.4 to 7.3% and 9 to 14.6%, respectively. A promising fertilizer was −1 a combination of urea + nitrapyrin with an average yield of 5.1 and 14.4 t ha under non-irrigation and irrigation, respectively. Fertilization under climate change was projected to reduce yield in the average range of 10.5–18.3% by Conclusion The results signified that sole fertilizer intensification is insufficient to attain sustainable maize yield. Therefore, there is need for integrated agronomic research that combines fertilizers and other technologies for enhancing maize yield, and consequently maize contribution to the attainment of global food security under climate change conditions. Keywords Climate change, Drought, Fertilizers, Heat stress, Maize, Nitrogen, Temperature, Yield *Correspondence: Akasairi Ocwa ocwa.akasairi@agr.unideb.hu Full list of author information is available at the end of the article © The Author(s) 2023. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ publi cdoma in/ zero/1. 0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. Ocwa et al. Agriculture & Food Security (2023) 12:14 Page 2 of 18 units (CHU), but positively before side-dressing with Introduction different nitrogen fertilizer [33]. It was also reported that The human population is projected to rise to 9 billion by substituting chemical nitrogen fertilizer with organic 2050 and food necessity is anticipated to increase by 85% fertilizers may mitigate N O emission but may reduce [1, 2]. Sustaining this growing population requires stable maize yield as compared to sole inorganic nitrogen agricultural production and food systems [2, 3] which fertilizer application [34]. Generally, maize yield is are currently affected by land degradation and climate highly dependent on fertilizer management, soil type change [4, 5]. Attaining the correct balance between food and nutrient status, maize growth duration period, security, environment protection, and addressing climate and the initial soil organic content [35] and change in change remains the leading bottleneck to sustainable meteorological variables. Accordingly, changes in soil food production systems and arable land management nutrient status along with climate change occur every [6]. In fact, it is devastating for less-favoured agricultural year and new fertilizer recommendations in terms of areas inhabited by poor vulnerable groups of people types, formulations, and application rates continue to and communities in countries with limited resources to emerge which affect yield. mitigate the impacts resulting into food insecurity, and Based on the above literature, this research was poverty-environment traps [7, 8]. One way to respond is designed to bridge the gap in the literature about the transforming major crop production techniques to offset interaction between maize yield and fertilization in a the negative effects of climate change and consequently changing climate. However, the specific goals were to: increase agricultural productivity [9–17]. (i) identify the key areas of concentration of research Maize (Zea mays  L) is among the top three cereal on fertilizer and climate change effect on maize yield, food crops grown and consumed globally [18–21]. It is (ii) assess the extent of the effect of climate change on a staple food in the diets of millions of people in Africa, maize grain yield, (iii) evaluate the extent of the effect Latin America, and South Asia and important feed crop of fertilization practices on maize grain yield, and (iv) for livestock in Europe and North America. However, examine the effect of interaction between climate change there is still a significant global shortage of maize which factors and fertilization practices on maize grain yield at precipitates food insecurity [22]. Climate change and soil global perspective. fertility deterioration are among the causes contributing to declining maize production [20, 23]. Earlier, it was Methodology reported that increasing maize production in semi-arid Search strategy and document evaluation areas requires right fertilizer use, soil management, Comprehensive search of global literature was and application of other recommended practices [24]. conducted in Web of Science (WoS) database. WoS The interactions between climate, soil features, and was chosen because it is regarded as the most complete agronomic management are critical to understanding and extensively used database   archiving literature productivity and sustainability of maize agroecosystems used in  reviews and bibliometric analyses. The search [25, 26]. keywords were "Maize” AND “fertilizer” AND “climate Generally, the effect of climate change and fertilizer change” AND “soil” AND “yield” covering years 2003– application on maize production and yield has been 2021. No language restriction was applied because all documented differently [20, 27, 28]. For instance, the articles were written in English. The search yielded a interaction between temperature and rainfall alters soil total of 287 articles which included 269 journal articles, water balance and reduce soil moisture by 11.2%, hence 8 book reviews, and 10 conference proceedings. Being a aggravating soil drying [29]. Generally, the average manageable number, all articles were screened by titles, impact of different projected climate scenarios on grain abstracts, and keywords. All the 287 articles retrieved yield could range between − 9% and − 39% [30]. On the contained at least a keyword from the search equation other hand, fertilizer application has been reported to hence all used for bibliometric analyses to address increase yield depending of climate conditions. Literature objective one. shows contradicting effect of changes in temperature, For objective 2–4, the inclusion and exclusion strategy rainfall and CO concentration, and fertilizer on yield involved reviewing the articles to answer the following of maize. Earlier, it was reported that maize yield was questions: positively correlated with mean temperature change in the control and negatively with nitrogen application [31]. Moreover, yield reduction by drought increased 1. Was there any climate change factor effect on maize with the increased application of nitrogen [32]. Besides, yield reported? maize yield response was negatively correlated with a) Yes (heat or temperature or water or drought stress temperature effects expressed as accumulated corn heat or CO concentration effect on yield reported) 2 O cwa et al. Agriculture & Food Security (2023) 12:14 Page 3 of 18 b) No (something else) were calculated and presented in tabular form [36]. For c) Unclear climate effect, the key results from individual articles 2. Was there any fertilizer effect on maize yield were highlighted and synthesized without tabulating. reported? Qualitative evidence was also presented and discussed. a) Yes (organic or chemical fertilizer effect on yield reported) Results and discussion b) No (something else) Advancement of scientific documents based c) Unclear on literature search on maize, fertilizer, climate change, 3. Was there any fertilizer and climate change factor soil, and yield (MFCCSY) interaction effect on maize yield reported? During early 2000s, less than 4.8% of documents were a) Yes (organic or chemical fertilizer and heat or published. Later, the progress was 5 (2.1%) documents temperature or water or drought stress or CO in 2012, 7 (2.4%) in 2013, 15 (5.2%) in 2014, 20 (6.9%) in concentration interactive effect on yield reported) 2015, 16 (15.5%) in 2016, 28 (9.8%) in 2017, 36 (12.5%) in b) No (something else) 2018, and 51 (17.8%) in 2019. This represents a progres - c) Unclear sive increase from 2.1% to 17.8% from 2012 to 2019. How- ever, only a slight decrease was realised in the number of papers in 2020 and 2021 with 47 (16.4%). The trend was Therefore, only articles with yes response were selected exponential, justified by high R (0.9) model fit regarding for reporting of objectives 2–4, because they met the the scientific papers published in the topics of maize, fer - inclusion criteria (Fig. 1) for the topic of this study. tilizer, climate change, soil, and yield (MFCCSY) (Fig. 2). This increased number of publications signifies rapid Data extraction and analysis response to address agricultural resources degradation, Document metadata: For objective 1, author details, climate change, and food insecurity. The human popu - like names, affiliation and country, title of document, lation is projected to rise to 9 billion by 2050 and food abstract, publication date, and journal name exported. necessity anticipated to increase by 85% [1, 2]. The 2021 Bibliographic analyses for co-authorship (country, UN food system summit recommended addressing envi- organisation), co-occurrence of keywords (most ronmental challenges like averting climate change threats significant and all), and total links were conducted using on agrarian systems ability to sustainably  produce food. VOSviewer (Version 1.6.17) bibliographic metric tool. In response to that call, robust research on cropping sys- Results were visualized and mapped out to identify tems, soil factors, climate change, and major food crops potential gaps and highlight knowledge limits in terms of was carried out. regions where the studies were done. In total, 81 countries published at least one document For objectives 2–4, data extracted included country, on the MFCCSY topics. Out of the 81 countries, two soil type in experimental site, type of fertilizer, fertilizer published > 80 documents, five published between 20 and rates, and yield. Yield data were extracted directly from 43 documents, 11 published documents between 10 and article tables and using a WebPlotDigitizer if presented 19, and 63 published documents between 1 and 19. China as figures. Yield increase or decrease by major treatments Fig. 1 Documents’ assessment criteria Ocwa et al. Agriculture & Food Security (2023) 12:14 Page 4 of 18 0.2757x y = 1.1418e R² = 0.9263 2003 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Year of publication Fig. 2 Publication trends of web of science literature on MFCCSY from 2003 to 2021. MFCCSY: maize, fertilizer, climate change, soil, and yield published the highest number of papers (99) followed by Table 1 The top 20 publishing and co-authoring countries on the USA with 81 publications. These two countries con - MFCCSY based on web of science literature search between 2003 tributed 62.7% of the MFCCSY literature between 2003 and 2021 and 2022 in WoS. It was in accordance with corn pro- Rank Country Documents Total link duction of these countries: USA is the largest a producer strength (383,943 million t) and China is the second one (with 272,552 million t). These two countries co-authored more 1 Peoples Republic China 99 55 documents with countries with total link strength of 64 2 USA 81 64 and 55 in China and USA, respectively. The other coun - 3 Germany 43 37 tries that had slightly higher total link strength were Ger- 4 Kenya 29 26 man (37), Kenya (26), and United Kingdom (21) (Table 1). 5 Australia 24 21 Increasing publications and co-authorship (Figs.  3, 4) 6 India 23 17 on fertilizer and climate change effect on maize can be 7 Canada 20 16 regarded as evidence of more advanced research by these 8 England 18 17 countries to increase food production to sustain the ris- 9 Italy 18 13 ing population. However, each of the African countries 10 The Netherlands 16 16 published less than 15 documents in this period except 11 Ethiopia 14 12 Kenya that published 29 documents showing that Africa 12 Burkina Faso 13 13 needs to do more in terms of publishing research find - 13 Mexico 13 13 ings. Of course, this may not be conclusive, because it 14 Pakistan 12 11 is possible that studies of most African countries could 15 France 11 11 be published in journals not indexed by WoS. However, 16 Spain 11 9 we pointed on evidences of collaborations on what was 17 Ghana 10 10 reported earlier that Africa lagged behind in terms of 18 Zimbabwe 10 9 maize research and production hence low yield [37]. 19 Denmark 9 7 According to the network co-occurrence of all author 20 Mali 9 9 keywords, MFCCSY appeared 162, 140, 126, 126, and MFCCSY: maize, fertilizer, climate change, soil, and yield 91 times, respectively, out of 1586 words with total links Number of published documents O cwa et al. Agriculture & Food Security (2023) 12:14 Page 5 of 18 Fig. 3 Co-authorship countries (affiliations) on MFCCSY based on web of science literature search between 2003 and 2021. MFCCSY: maize, fertilizer, climate change, soil, and yield Fig. 4 Co-authorship organisations (affiliations) on MFCCSY based on web of science literature search between 2003 and 2021. MFCCSY: maize, fertilizer, climate change, soil, and yield of 168, 139, 126, 125, and 87 of all author keywords that change adaptation, drought, temperature, cropping sys- appeared in the published documents from 2003 to 2021 tems, integrated nutrient management, biochar, green- (Table  2). Accordingly, in the most significant author house gases, nitrogen fertilizer, nitrogen use efficiency, keywords, climate change, maize, maize yield, soil fertil- nitrate leaching, organic matter, nutrient use efficiency, ity, and fertilizer appeared 46, 52, 46, 20, and 32 times carbon sequestration, and sustainability among oth- with total links 40, 39, 38, 15, and 17, respectively, out ers (Figs.  5, 6). The keyword sustainability is evidence of of 882 words that appeared in the published documents maize sustainable intensification to increase yield with - (Table  3). In fact, higher total link value showed that the out degrading agroecosystems. The practices pointed keyword has been linked with others several times. The out in all authors’ keywords such as integrated nutri- other relevant keywords that appeared were climate ent use, nutrient use efficiency, nitrogen use efficiency, Ocwa et al. Agriculture & Food Security (2023) 12:14 Page 6 of 18 Table 2 Co-occurrence and total link of selected significant all author keywords on MFCCSY based on web of science literature search between 2003 and 2021 Keyword Occurrence Total link Crop/maize/grain yield 162 168 Climate change/variability 140 139 Maize/corn 126 126 Fertilizer (manure, compost, nitrogen/nitrogen fertilizer) 126 125 Soil/soil quality/physical properties/SOC 91 87 Cropping systems 49 49 Soil fertility 19 19 Climate smart agriculture/climate change adaptation/mitigation 19 19 Nitrogen use efficiency 15 15 Biochar 14 14 Nutrient management/integrated nutrient management 14 14 Temperature 14 14 Irrigation 13 13 Drought 11 11 Yield gap and stability 10 10 Nitrate leaching 9 9 Phosphorus 6 6 MFCCSY: maize, fertilizer, climate change, soil, and yield Table 3 Co-occurrence and total link of selected most significant author keywords on MFCCSY based on web of science literature search between 2003 and 2021 Keyword Occurrence Total link Climate change 46 40 Maize 52 39 Yield/crop yield 46 38 Soil fertility/soil organic carbon 20 15 Fertilizer/manure/compost 17 17 Nitrogen/nitrogen fertilizer 15 12 Biochar 11 8 Nutrient management/integrated nutrient management 10 9 Nitrate leaching 9 4 Nitrogen use efficiency 7 5 Climate smart agriculture climate change adaptation 10 6 Drought 6 5 MFCCSY: maize, fertilizer, climate change, soil, and yield and climate change adaptation ensure increased maize sustainably ensure stable food production and boost food productivity, food security, and environmental security. security [39, 40]. Overall, judicious fertilizer intensifica - Particularly, the keyword nitrogen use efficacy is a per - tion in maize production is partly directed to the attain- tinent area of research focus, because it ensures high ment of SDG2 (zero hunger) and 13 (climate action). yield production though at environmental cost if  over applied. Excess nitrogen in the environment degrades Eec ff t of climate change on maize yield soil, reduces water, and air quality, and contributes to cli- According to United Nations Framework Convention mate change by increasing N O and NO emissions [38]. on Climate Change (UNFCCC), climate change caused This underscores application of technologies that ensure directly or indirectly by human activities affect global effective use of fertilizers inputs in crop production to atmospheric composition. Ultimately, these activities O cwa et al. Agriculture & Food Security (2023) 12:14 Page 7 of 18 Fig. 5 Network of co-occurrence of the most significant author keywords on MFCCSY based on web of science literature search between 2003 and 2021. MFCCSY: maize, fertilizer, climate change, soil, and yield Fig. 6 Network of co-occurrence of all author keywords on MFCCSY based on web of science literature search between 2003 and 2021. MFCCSY: maize, fertilizer, climate change, soil, and yield change the climate characteristics  hence affecting pro - was predicted to decrease by 10–17%, 8.9–14.7%, and ductivity of agroecosystems. In this sense, research- 10.1–12.9% in 2030s, 2050s, and 2070s, respectively ers analyse the effect of climate change on crop yield under increasing CO [48]. Accordingly, CO decreased 2 2 [41–47]. For example, rise in C O concentration under yield by 0.1% at 360 ppm (1980–2009), 0.8% at 496 ppm projected climate change was predicted to increase (2040–2069), and increased yield by 2.4% at 556  ppm yield by 7.3% between 2021 and 2050 from the base- (2040–2069), 4.5% at 734 ppm (2070–2099) [49]. Over- −1 line of 3.5 t ha (1981–2010) [43]. In contrast, yield all analysis reveals uncertain positive and negative Ocwa et al. Agriculture & Food Security (2023) 12:14 Page 8 of 18 Eec ff t of fertilizer application on maize yield effects of increasing CO concentration on yield depict- Nutrient stress is among the key limiting factors that ing the need for continuous monitoring, assessment, curtail maize growth and yield [56, 57], and hence, and prediction. judicious fertilizer application as well as increasing Concerning temperature, a report in Canada revealed nutrient use efficiency are critical steps to addressing that rising temperature reduced yield by 41% [50]. nutrient limitation [58]. The future therefore, calls for Similarly, high-temperature stress reduced yield by better maize crop and soil fertility management as 25–32% between 2018 and 2017 in China [32]. Also, significant factors to boost yield [41]. Among the options a prediction of yield decline of up to 32% in southern include optimizing application of fertilizers through Africa between 2070 and 2099 was reported [41]. integrated soil fertility management framework to ensure The effect of temperature stress is severe during the proper utilization of limited nutrients [59], site-specific reproductive stage, since it can cause grain weight nutrient management [60–62], and use of balanced reduction by 25–32% [51]. In Africa, each 1  °C mean fertilizers [62–64]. temperature rise caused yield loss of 5–10% in 10 Nitrogen sources and application rates were the countries, but increased by < 5% in four moderately cool principal investigations undertaken. Even when organic countries [52]). In China, corn yield had a significant fertilizers were used, nitrogen was the major element negative correlation with variations in the average investigated. The dominant fertilizer sources were urea, maximum temperature (T ) during the growth max NPK, and ammonium sulfate. The yield range differed by season [31]. A 1  °C increase in T caused 14% yield max fertilizer source, rate, and nature of use (whether sole or reduction. This shows a maximum yield change of 4% −1 combined). Application of high nitrogen (120  kg  ha ) by 1  °C temperature change between China and African −1 rate in West Africa produced 1.6 t ha equivalent to 60% countries. It is also explained that temperature effect yield increment compared to the control [65]. Similarly, on maize yield varies by altitude [53]. What remains −1 −1 in Italy, application of 180  kg N ha yielded 2.7 t ha uncertain is the exact change in regional temperature −1 compared to 1.2 t ha in the control which represents rise in low and high altitudes that will affect yield and in 125% yield increment (67]. In China, yield from higher what percentage. Closely related to temperature effect on −1 −1 rates of nitrogen 168–321  kg N ha was 9.3–9.5 t ha maize yield is drought. High and very high agricultural −1 compared to 5.7 t ha in the control [67] presenting a drought hazard zones are approximated at 23.57 and 60% yield increase by higher nitrogen application rates. 27.19% of global total agricultural area [47]. In tropical −1 Accordingly, a yield difference of 14.7 and 13.5 t ha was areas, the overriding effect of climate change will be in registered in 100% and 70% nitrogen fertilization (urea) altered water balance/rainfall. It is underscored that −1 compared to the control (10.6 t ha ) [68] reflecting a increased incidence of severe drought is likely to double yield increment of 38.7 and 26.9%. Accordingly, the yield the rate of drought-induced yield losses in the prevalent −1 −1 in 100% NPK was 4.7 t ha compared to 3.0 t ha in warming scenarios [46], reducing yield by up to 33% in 50% NPK and 2.0 in the control [69]. Overall, 100% yield USA [54]. Drought and heat stress hasten soil drying, difference in NPK and urea suggests the effect of nitrogen interfere with crop water-utilization patterns, and source. Certainly, this may not be conclusive, since negatively affecting reproduction thus yield. Projection of there are other influencing factors that differ in the two maize yield is reported  to decrease and increase by 4.7 countries. and 3.5% in the fast warming-low rainfall climates and A part from rates accounting for yield increment slow warming-high rainfall regions, respectively by 2050 differences, we observed that soil type in the experimental [7]. A prediction in Uganda indicated that water balance sites affected yield response to different fertilizer sources (rainfall) will decrease yield by 11.35% between 2021 and −1 and rates. For example, 90 kg Nha under calcaric gleyic 2050. It remains unclear the pattern of water balance cambisol and ferric acrisol soil produced 1.98 and 2.3 t that will sustain grain yield. Together, it is reported that −1 ha , respectively, in Italy and Ghana [66, 70]. Comparing high CO concentration, intensive rainfall, and rising −1 a similar rate (90 kg Nha ) in in Italy and Ghana under temperature increased grain yield by 8.5% [55]. It is calcaric gleyic cambisol and ferric acrisol soil produces reported in China that enhancing maize yields required −1 a yield difference of 0.3 t ha . The low grain yield from medium temperature (14.2–14.6  °C) and precipitation −1 90 kg Nha under calcaric gleyic cambisol and ferric (628.4–649.9  mm) [23]. However, the medium acrisol depicts the need to investigate higher doses of temperatures, rainfall, and C O concentrations that nitrogen that can produce optimum yield. In Chile, enhance maize yield under changing climate in different −1 application of 200 and 400  kg  ha of urea in soils of regions remain unclear and hence require investigation. −1 alluvial origin produced 16.7 and 9.4 t ha , respectively [71]. Conversely, in China, slightly higher rate (175  kg O cwa et al. Agriculture & Food Security (2023) 12:14 Page 9 of 18 −1 −1 and 15 t ha ) combined with triple superphosphate, Nha ) under Mollisol soil produced the highest yield −1 −1 −1 dolomite (75 and 100%) was 15.17 t ha compared to of 10.8 t ha compared to 5.5 t ha in the control [72] −1 9.77 and 9.22 t ha in NPK and Control (no biochar or representing 96.4% yield increment. This shows that fertilizer), respectively [78]. This is a clear indication that yield effect by fertilizer rates varies by soil type and/ effective utilization of  biochar to sustain higher grain or location of the experiment depicting the importance yield is possible through its amendment with chemical of geographical experiment replication for purposes of fertilizers, and use of increased application rate. However, reproducibility and replicability of results. future studies could consider investigating the effect of From our synthesis, it became clear that various biochar from different materials, such as wheat straw, techniques were applied to reduce nitrogen loss and corn stems, and wood sawdust with varying NPK levels improve nitrogen use efficiency and consequently and dolomite. This widens the scope of applicability of yield. For example, in Pakistan, application of urea results since organic materials vary by physicochemical with nitrapyrin (nitrification inhibitor) and gibberellic −1 −1 properties. Conversely, integration of 25  kg Nha registered different results; 6.2 t ha in urea (200  kg −1 −1 −1 −1 (FYM) + 25 Nha (urea) + 30  kg P ha registered the N kg ha ) + nitrapyrin (700 g  ha ) + Gibberellic −1 −1 highest (46.7%) yield increase compared to the control acid (60 g  ha ), 5.3 t ha in urea (200  kg N kg −1 −1 −1 −1 [79]. Similarly, in China, a higher yield (8.2 t ha ) in ha ) + nitrapyrin (700 g  ha ), 4.5 t ha in sole urea, −1 inorganic NPK fertilizer + horse manure compared to and 4.0 t ha in the control [73]. Similarly, considerably −1 −1 sole NPK (7.2 t ha ) was recorded reflecting 1 t ha higher yield was recorded in nitrogen application −1 yield improvement [31]. Overall, this confirms the role through prilled urea (5.6 t ha ), sulfur coated (5.4 t −1 −1 of integrated fertilizer use in improving corn yield. The ha ), and neem-coated urea (5.8 t ha ) compared −1 effect of different fertilizers sources and rates on grain to 2.8 t ha in the control [74]. This shows that the yield and associated increment increments is shown in highest (107%) yield increment was recorded in nitrogen Table 4. supplied through neem-coated urea. Coating of urea The improvement of maize yield by fertilizers was not ensures slow release of nitrogen thereby lowering in isolation but in combination with other  agronomic nitrogen losses, and improving uptake in the form of practices with irrigation being the dominant (Table  5). ammonium [75]. The results reveal the possibility of A study in Spain involving nitrogen × irrigation levels combining neem-coated urea + nitrapyrin + gibberellic −1 revealed that the highest yield of 12.4 and 17.2 t ha acid to improve grain yield. Therefore, future study at 75% and 100% irrigation compared to 6.91 and 10.8 t could consider evaluating the effect of different levels of −1 −1 ha was recorded in single application of 170 kg N ha neem-coated urea + nitrapyrin + gibberellic acid on yield. of urea (with urease inhibitor) [80]. This reveals a yield Another approach to improve nutrient use efficiency is enhancement of 79.5 and 59.3% in 75 and 100% irriga- site nutrient management [60–62]. For example, specific tion interacting with nitrogen levels, respectively. What nutrient management involving nitrogen, phosphorus, remains unknown would be the yield effect if urea with and potassium (N:P2O5:K2O) had superior (6.99 t −1 −1 −1 urease inhibitor is applied at over 200 kg ha at 50–100% ha ) yield compared to farmers practice (3.8 t ha ) −1 irrigation. This is critical since potential optimum yield and control (2.9 t ha ) under maize–wheat–mungbean needs to be obtained with minimal water requirement cropping system [76]. This shows 145% yield increment due to climate change. Accordingly, nitrogen fertilizer by site-specific nutrient management due to optimum −1 rates at 120, 180, 240, and 360 kg  ha had yield ranging nutrient supply that matches crop demand. −1 −1 from 6.1 to 6.7 t ha and 8.3 to 8.5 t ha under drought Besides, application of organic materials in sole or in and non-drought water regimes [32]. This slightly depicts combination with chemical fertilizers enlisted various −1 low physiological and nitrogen utilization efficiency of effects. In China, application of biochar (20 t ha ) had −1 −1 maize under drought conditions. Similarly, in China, yield of 1.2 t ha compared to 1.1 t ha in organic −1 the highest yield (15.7 t ha ) was recorded under sur- fertilizer [32]. This is seemingly very low yield related face drip fertigation and plastic mulch + clay soil com- to quantity of biochar used. Besides, application of −1 −1 pared to 13.2 t ha in the control [47] presenting a 18.9% biochar at 30 t ha increased maize leaf chlorophyll yield increment. Conversely, the application of NPK at content (21%), photosynthetic rate by 16.5%, and yield by −1 375 kg  ha + alternative ridges-furrows + transparent 11.9% [77]. We suggest that future study could consider polyethylene film, alternative ridges-furrows + black pol- assessing the yield effect of integrating reduced rates yethylene film and conventional flat planting had yield of biochar with different levels of nitrogen and phosphorus. −1 −1 4.3, 4,3, and 2.9 t ha compared to 3.8,3.8 and 1.7 t ha This is because nitrogen and phosphorus could improve in the control, respectively [81]. Closely related to the the efficacy of biochar. Earlier, in Malaysia, it was effect of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium (NPK), the reported that the average yield from rice biochar (10 Ocwa et al. Agriculture & Food Security (2023) 12:14 Page 10 of 18 Table 4 The summary of the effect of fertilizers on maize yield (selected data) Country Soil type (experimental site) Fertilizer Yield Yield increase or  Reference decrease (% change from the control) −1 India Vertisol sandy loam texture Organic fertilizers and urea 2.1 t ha 40 [79] −1 100% RDF of N (100% RDF 2.2 t ha 46.7 −1 comprised of 60 kg ha − 1 of N and 2.1 t ha 40 −1 −1 30 kg h of P2O5.) 2.0 t ha 33.3 −1 −1 25 kg ha N (FYM) + 25 kg N 2.0 t ha 33.3 −1 −1 (Urea) + 30 kg P ha 2.1 t ha 40 −1 −1 25 kg ha N (Compost) + 25 kg N 2.3 t ha 53.3 −1 −1 (Urea) + 30 kg P ha 1.8 t ha 20 −1 −1 25 kg ha N (Crop residue) + 25 kg 1.5 t ha −1 N (Urea) + 30 kg P ha −1 15 kg ha ha N (FYM) + 10 kg N (Crop Residue) + 25 kg N −1 (Urea) + 30 kg P ha ha −1 15 kg ha N (FYM) + 10 kg N (Compost) + 25 kg N (Urea) + 30 kg −1 P ha −1 15 kg ha N (FYM) + 10 kg N (Green Leaf ) + 25 kg N (Urea) + 30 kg P −1 ha 100% recommended N (urea) −1 without P (60 kg ha of N) Control −1 West Africa (Ghana, Lixic Plinthosols, Haplic Lixisols Recommended nitrogen 1.5 t ha 50 [65] −1 −1 Benin, Burkina Faso) (60 kg ha ) 1.6 t ha 60 −1 −1 High nitrogen (120 kg ha ) 1.0 t ha Control −1 −1 Italy Calcaric gleyic cambisol 90N kg ha 1.98 t ha 65 [66] −1 −1 180 N kg ha 2.7 t ha 125 −1 Control 1.2 t ha −1 −1 Ghana Ferric acrisol Urea (90 kg N ha )2.3 ha 130 [70] −1 Plant residues1.9 ha 90 −1 Control (no fertilizer)1.0 ha −1 −1 3.78 t ha 32.6 [76] India Sandy loam in texture ( Typic N:P2O5:K2O kg ha −1 Farmer fertilizer practices 4.42 t ha 55.1 Haplustept) of Gangetic alluvial −1 (110.0:30.0:0.0) 6.99 t ha 145.3 origin −1 Recommended dose 2.85 t. ha (150.0:60.0:40.0) Site specific nutrient management (170.0:37.0:44.0) Unfertilized (110.0:30.0:0.0) −1 Ghana Sandy-loam soils Nitrogen levels (urea) 2.2 t ha 340 [89] −1 60 kg/ha 2.8 t. ha 460 −1 120 kg/ha 0.5 t ha Control −1 Malaysia Bungor ( Typic Paleudult; Order: Dolomite lime stone + Rice 15.17 t ha 64.5 [78] −1 Ultisol) biochar + TSP (Data from average of 9.77 t ha 5.97 −1 TSP and Dolomite at 75 and 100%, 9.22 t ha rice biochar from 10 and 15 t/ha) NPK recommended Control (no biochar or fertilizer) −1 −1 Italy Mesic Udertic Haplustalf soil 100% N fertilization (230 kg N ha 14.74 t ha 38.7 [68] − −1 urea) 13.49 t ha 26.9 −1 −1 70% N fertilization (160 kg N ha 10.63 t ha urea) 0% N fertilization (control) O cwa et al. Agriculture & Food Security (2023) 12:14 Page 11 of 18 Table 4 (continued) Country Soil type (experimental site) Fertilizer Yield Yield increase or  Reference decrease (% change from the control) −1 China Brown soil (clay textural class) Inorganic N fertilizer 4.54 t ha 27.9 [31] −1 Inorganic N and phosphorus (P) 6.05 t ha 70.4 −1 fertilizer 7.2 t ha 102.8 −1 Inorganic N, P, and potassium(K) 8.23 t ha 131.8 −1 fertilizer 3.55 t ha Inorganic NPK fertilizer + manure Control (Fertilizers urea, calcium superphosphate, and potassium −1 chloride; rates N 187.5 kg ha, P O 2 5 −1 −1 150 kg ha , and K O 150 kg ha , −1 horse manure 25 Mg ha ) −1 China Brown earth 100% manure 6.9 t ha Not calculated [90] −1 75% cattle manure + 25% mineral 7.2 t ha −1 nitrogen 8.1 t ha −1 50% cattle manure + 50% mineral 7.2 t ha nitrogen 100% mineral nitrogen −1 China Mollisol Farmer’s N management 250 kg N 10.7 t ha 94.5 [72] −1 −1 ha , 10.8 t ha 96.4 −1 Improved N management 175 5.5 t ha −1 kgNha applied at the basal stage −1 and 14–38 kg N ha at jointing stage Control −1 India Sandy-loam soil ( Typic Haplustept) N through prilled urea (N:P2O5:K2O 5.6 t ha 100 [74] −1 −1 kg ha 150:60:40) 5.4 t ha 92.8 −1 N through Sulfur coated urea (S) 5.8 t ha 107.1 −1 −1 (N:P2O5:K2O kg ha 150:60:40) 2.8 t ha N through Neem coated −1 urea(N:P2O5:K2O kg ha ) Control −1 −1 Taiwan Hyperthermic, udic, haplaquept, Chemical fertilizer (N 178N kg ha 13.4 t ha Not calculated [91] −1 −1 mixed, and calcareous, with a silty , P2O5 56N kg ha , K2O 60N 13.6 t ha −1 −1 loam texture kgha ) 13.4 t ha −1 Organic fertilizer (20,000 kg ha ) Integrated fertilizer (half chemical and half organic) −1 India Gangetic alluvium (Entisol) 100% recommended dose of 5.6 t ha Not calculated [92] −1 nitrogen or RD ) (chemical fertilizer) 5.7 t ha −1 25% RD (vermicompost) 5.9 t ha −1 25% RD (FYM) 6.5 t ha −1 25% RD (brassicaceousseed meal) 6.2 t ha 25% RD (neem cake) −1 China Loam, clay and sand Nitrogen levels 9.3 t ha 63.1 [67] −1 −1 168N kg ha 9.5 t ha 66.7 −1 −1 240N kg ha 9.4 t ha 64.9 −1 −1 270N kg ha 9.3 t ha 63.1 −1 −1 321N kg ha 5.7 t ha −1 Control (0 kg ha ) −1 −1 Pakastan Silt loam Urea alone (200 kg N kg ha ) 4.5 t ha 12.5 [73] −1 Urea (200 kg N kg 5.0 t ha 25 −1 −1 −1 ha ) + Gibberellic acid(60 g ha ) 5.3 t ha 32.5 −1 −1 Urea (200 kg N kg ha ) + nitrapyrin 6.2 t ha 55 −1 −1 (700 g ha ) 4.0 t ha −1 Urea(200 kg N kg ha ) + nitrapyrin −1 (700 g ha ) + Gibberellic −1 acid(60 g ha ) Control Ocwa et al. Agriculture & Food Security (2023) 12:14 Page 12 of 18 Table 4 (continued) Country Soil type (experimental site) Fertilizer Yield Yield increase or  Reference decrease (% change from the control) −1 China Black soils (luvic phaeozems), fluvo- Mineral nitrogen and phosphorous 3.99 t ha Not calculated [35] −1 aquic soils (calcaric cambisols), and fertilizer 7.4 t ha −1 loessial soils (calcaric regosol) NPK: NP + potassium 8.3 t ha −1 NP + S: NP + Straw 8.3 t ha −1 NPK + S: NPK + straw 8.2 t ha −1 Ghana Ferric luvisol Ammonium sulfate (60 kgs/ha/yr) 2.1 t ha 425 [93] −1 Ammonium sulfate (120 kgs/ha/yr) 2.3 t ha 475 −1 Urea (60 kgs/ha/yr) 2.2 t ha 450 −1 Urea (120 kgs/ha/yr) 2.3 t ha 475 −1 NPK 60–40-40 (Recommended) 2.1 t ha 425 −1 Control 0.4 t ha −1 Uganda Silty loam gleysols Farmers practice (weeded once) 1.6 t ha -50 [94] −1 Mineral fertilizer; low rate (NPK: 3.3 t ha 3.1 −1 −1 60:0:0)—130 kgha urea 5 t ha 56.3 −1 Mineral fertilizer; high rate (NPK: 3.4 t ha 6.3 −1 120:60:60)—261 urea + 130 4.2 t ha 31.3 −1 TSP + 100 Potassium chloride (KCl) 3.2 t ha Organic amendments; low rate (NPK: 60:3:35)—5929Lablab purpureus (Linnaeus) Sweet Organic amendments; low rate (NPK: 120:18:79)—5929L. purpureus + 6758 poultry manure Non-fertilized (weed free) −1 Benin Ferralitic soil 100% NPK 4.7 t ha 85 [69] −1 50% NPK 3.0 t ha 50 −1 0% NPK (control) 2.0 t ha −1 −1 China Semi-hydromorphic-fluvo-aquic- Biochar (20 t. ha ) 1.2 t ha 9.1 [32] −1 −1 salinized fluvo-aquic soil Organic fertilizer 1.35 t ha ) 1.1 t ha −1 Chile Alluvial origin (coarse loam family on Nitrogen rates (urea) 19.14 t ha 14.9 [71] −1 −1 skeletal, mixed, thermal sand of the 400 kg ha 16.66 t ha −1 Entic Haploxerolls) 200 kg ha −1 interaction between NPK levels × mycorrhiza had vary- compared to the control of 1.4 and 0.95 t ha , respec- −1 ing effect on yield; 4.7 t ha in 100% NPK + Sans CMA , tively [66], representing 128 and 131% yield improve- −1 −1 2.9 t ha Sans CMA + 50% NPK, and 1.6 t ha (Sans ment. On the other hand, a comparative assessment of CMA + 0% NPK (control) [69]. This shows 193% yield maize, finger millet, and sorghum for household food increment in 100% NPK + Sans CMA compared to the security in the face of increasing climatic risk in Zimba- −1 control. Based on a promising treatment, future studies bwe indicated that high rate of fertilizer: 90  kg N ha , −1 −1 would consider evaluating 100% NPK + Sans CMA with 26 kg P ha  and 7 t ha manure had 3.9, 3.3, and 0.6 t −1 varying level of irrigation to ascertain its potential yield. ha yield in early, normal, and late planting, respectively Besides, earlier, we reported that integrated chemical [83]. Our analysis of the yield effect between fertilizer and organic fertilizers sustain yield. Based on the prom- interaction with tillage, and planting dates without irri- −1 ising results of Sans CMA mycorrhiza, a study could be gation reveals a low yield  of  < 4 t ha . This depicts the also conducted to establish integrated effect of 100% necessity for water to ensure sustainable yield and food NPK + Sans CMA and farmyard manure on yield. production. Other practices that enhanced fertilizer effect on maize yield were seed dressing, tillage, and planting date. Interactive effect of climate change and fertilization −1 Maize grain yield increased to 2.6 t ha by mounding on maize yield −1 −1 and 60  kg N ha application as compared to 2.3 t ha Maize yield is susceptible to climate change since mete- in level tillage [82]. Similarly, a simulation of yield in a 5 orological variables control availability of resources −1 year experiment under 180 kg Nha showed that yield like, CO , water, and solar radiation that directly −1 under conventional and no tillage was 3.2 and 2.2 t ha affect maize growth and development. Countries with O cwa et al. Agriculture & Food Security (2023) 12:14 Page 13 of 18 Table 5 The summary of effect of fertilizers × other agronomic practices on maize yield (selected data) Country Soil type (experimental site) Fertilizer × agronomic practice(s) Yield Yield increase (% Reference change from the control) −1 Spain Calcic Cambisol/TypicCalcixerept Nitrogen × Irrigation levels 9.8 t ha 41.8 [80] −1 −1 170 kg N ha of urea split into two 16.7 t ha 54.6 −1 dressings (4–6 and 8 leaves) + 75% 9.8 t ha 41.8 −1 irrigation 16.1 t ha 49.1 −1 −1 170 kg N ha of urea split into two 9.6 t ha 38.9 −1 dressings (4–6 and 8 leaves) + 100% 14.2 t ha 31.5 −1 irrigation 12.4 t ha 79.5 −1 −1 170 kg N ha of urea applied at 4–6 17.2 t ha 59.3 −1 leaves + 75% irrigation 6.91 t ha −1 −1 170 kg N ha of urea applied at 4–6 10.8 t ha leaves + 100% irrigation −1 170 kg N ha of urea (with urease inhibitor) split into two dressings (4–6 and 8 leaves) + 75% irrigation −1 170 kg N ha of urea (with urease inhibitor) split into two dressings (4–6 and 8 leaves) + 100% irrigation −1 170 kg N ha of urea (with urease inhibitor) applied at 4–6 leaves + 75% irrigation −1 170 kg N ha of urea (with urease inhibitor applied at 4–6 leaves + 100% irrigation Control (no fertilizer) + 75% irrigation Control (no fertilizer) + 100% irrigation −1 Italy Calcaric gleyic cambisol Nitrogen × tillage types 2.4 t ha 71.4 [66] −1 −1 90N kg ha + conventional tillage 1.6 t ha 68.4 −1 −1 90N kg ha + no tillage 3.2 t ha 128 −1 −1 180 N kg ha + conventional tillage 2.2 t ha 131.6 −1 −1 180 N kg ha + no tillage 1.4 t ha −1 Control + conventional tillage 0.95 t ha Control + no tillage −1 Benin Ferralitic soil NPK × mycorrhiza 4.7 t ha 193 [69] −1 Sans CMA + 100% NPK 2.9 t ha 81.3 −1 Sans CMA + 50% NPK 4.2 t ha 61.5 −1 Glomus caledonius + 50% NPK 3.3 t ha 24.2 −1 Diversispora globifera + 50% NPK 3.1 t ha 29.2 −1 Acaulospora capsicula + A. 1.6 t ha −1 dilatata + 50% NPK 2.6 t ha −1 Sans CMA + 0% NPK 2.5 t ha −1 Glomus caledonius + 0% NPK 2.4 t ha Diversispora globifera + 0% NPK Acaulospora capsicula + A. dilatata + 0% NPK −1 Italy Mesic Udertic Haplustalf soil N fertilization (urea) × gypsum seed 4.5 t ha 9.7 [68] −1 dressing 3.6 t ha 12.5 −1 100% N fertilization (230 kg N 2.8 t ha 7.7 −1 −1 ha ) + gypsum seed dressing 4.1 t ha −1 70% N fertilization (160 kg N 3.2 t ha −1 −1 ha ) + gypsum seed dressing 2.6 t ha 0% N fertilization (control) + gypsum seed dressing −1 100% N fertilization (230 kg N ha ) −1 70% N fertilization (160 kg N ha ) 0% N fertilization (control) Ocwa et al. Agriculture & Food Security (2023) 12:14 Page 14 of 18 Table 5 (continued) Country Soil type (experimental site) Fertilizer × agronomic practice(s) Yield Yield increase (% Reference change from the control) −1 Kenya Sandy clay loams in texture (chromic Fertilization (NPK 1:1:1) × ridge-furrow 4.3 t ha 13.2 [81] −1 luvisols) plastic-mulching 4.3 t ha 13.2 −1 −1 375 kg ha + RFT 2.9 t ha 41.4 −1 −1 375 kg ha + RFB 4.2 t ha 10.5 −1 −1 375 kg ha + FP 4.1 t ha 7.9 −1 −1 225 ha + RFT 2.4 t ha 41.1 −1 −1 225 ha + RFB 3.8 t ha −1 −1 225 ha + FP 3.8 t ha −1 RFT (control) 1.7 t ha RFB (control) FP (control) RFT (alternative ridges-furrows with transparent polyethylene film), RFB( alternative ridges-furrows with black polyethylene film), FP (conventional flat planting) −1 China Fluvoaquic N fertilizer rates × drought stress (mean of 6.7 t ha 11.6 [32] −1 two varieties) 8.3 t ha 20.3 −1 −1 120 N kg ha + drought 6.4 t ha 6.7 −1 −1 120 N kg ha + non-drought 9.6 t ha 39.1 −1 −1 180 N kg ha + drought 6.2 t ha 3.3 −1 −1 180 N kg ha + non-drought 8.7 t ha 26.1 −1 −1 240 N kg ha + drought 6.1 t ha 1.7 −1 −1 240 N kg ha + non-drought 8.5 t ha 23.1 −1 −1 360 N kg ha + drought 6.0 t ha −1 −1 360 N kg ha + non-drought 6.9 t ha −1 0 N kg ha + drought −1 0 N kg ha + non-drought −1 Zimbabwe Granite-derived sands Fertilization rate × planting date 1.7 t ha 183 [83] −1 −1 −1 Low rate (35 kg N ha , 14 kg P ha , 3 t 3.9 t ha 550 −1 −1 ha manure) + early planting 1.9 t ha 171.4 −1 −1 −1 High rate (90 kg N ha , 26 kg P ha , 7 t 3.3 t ha 371.4 −1 −1 ha manure) + early planting 0.6 t ha 200 −1 −1 −1 Low rate (35 kg N ha , 14 kg P ha , 3 t 0.9 t ha 350 −1 −1 ha manure) + normal planting 0.6 t ha −1 −1 −1 High rate (90 kg N ha , 26 kg P ha , 7 t 0.7 t ha −1 −1 ha manure) + normal planting 0.2 t ha −1 −1 Low rate (35 kg N ha , 14 kg P ha , 3 t −1 ha manure) + late planting −1 −1 High rate (90 kg N ha , 26 kg P ha , 7 t −1 ha manure) + late planting Control/no fertilizer + early planting Control/no fertilizer + normal planting Control/no fertilizer + late planting −1 China Sandy and clay soil Drip fertigation methods (NPK) × soil type 12.0 t ha 27.7 [47] −1 Drip irrigation + sandy soil 14.8 t ha 12.1 −1 Drip irrigation + clay soil 13.2 t ha 40.4 −1 Surface drip fertigation × sandy soil 15.5 t ha 17.4 −1 Surface drip fertigation × clay soil 12.8 t ha 36.2 −1 Subsurface drip fertigation + sandy soil 14.99 t ha 13.6 −1 Subsurface drip fertigation + clay soil 13.3 t ha 41.5 −1 Surface drip fertigation and plastic 15.7 t ha 18.9 −1 mulch + sandy soil 9.4 t ha −1 Surface drip fertigation and plastic 13.2 t ha mulch + clay soil Conventional + sandy soil Conventional + clay soil better management practices are anticipated to have bet- [52] due to climate change. In fact, maize grain yield ter yields but probably more susceptible to yield losses due to sufficient nutrient supply is more sensitive to O cwa et al. Agriculture & Food Security (2023) 12:14 Page 15 of 18 climate variability [84]. Therefore, specific application questions: (i) what will be appropriate nitrogen level and adjustment of agronomic techniques matching the that can produce maximum grain yield under elevated changing climate patterns like technical fertilizer appli- CO , temperature, and reduced rainfall? (ii) What sow- cation to sustain higher maize yield in future is required ing date, irrigation level combined with nitrogen lev- [29, 52]. Temperature increase by 1  °C is reported to els produces maximum grain yield under elevated CO , reduce maize yield by 2.6% though with slight increase in temperature, and reduced rainfall? (iii) What will be the some areas depending of nutrient management [86]. Spe- exact grain yield reduction (sensitivity) by nitrogen levels cifically, nitrogen fertilization is reported to control the under elevated CO , temperature, and reduced/increased reaction of maize grain yield to variations in temperature, precipitation? rainfall, and CO [53]. It is projected that fertilizer use under elevated C O concentration will increase yield by Conclusions 9% between 2021 and 2050 [43]. However, reduction in This bibliographic review was carried out to analyse yield by 14 and 26% due to increased temperature with the interaction between maize yield, fertilization, and −1 application of 0 and 160 kgNha was reported in sub- climate change. General synthesis of literature on climate Saharan Africa [53]. The same report shows that a 4  °C and fertilizer effects reveal interesting results: a 1–4  °C rise in temperature had less effect on grain yield at 80 temperature rise will decrease and increase yield by −1 and 160 kgNha . Accordingly, yield reduced by > 10% 5–14% and < 5% in warm and cold areas, respectively, for 1  °C temperature rise in areas with soil total nitro- precipitation reduction will decrease yield by 25–32% −1 −1 gen < 1.10  g  kg but, increased when > 1.33  g  kg while CO concentration will increase and decrease depicting nitrogen to contribute to the resilience of maize yield by 2.4 to 7.3% and 9 to 14.6% between 2030 and grown in summer warming [86]. Consequently, nitro- 2099. A promising fertilizer was a combination of gen application improved grain yield by 5.4 and 26.8% urea + nitrapyrin with an average yield of 5.1 and 14.4 −1 in the dry and wet years, respectively [53]. Low yield t ha under irrigation and non-irrigation. A 90  kg −1 increase in dry year was attributed to the fact that high Nha application under calcaric gleyic cambisol and −1 nitrogen application increased the leaf area and transpi- ferric acrisol soil had low (1.98–2.3 t ha ) yield in all ration rates, and caused curling of maize leaves hence countries. Fertilization under climate change will reduce decreasing photosynthesis. Conversely, temperature yield by an average of 10.5–18.3% by 2099. This signifies rise and precipitation decrease were simulated to cause that a part from judicious fertilizer intensification in −1 yield change of 2.78 to 9.94% in 55.2 kgNha , − 3.81% maize production, there is need for integrated agronomic −1 to − 8.88% in 110.4 kgNha , and − 2.33% to 10.63% research that combines fertilizers and other enhancing −1 in 165.6 kgNha as influence by sowing dates for technologies if optimum yield and maize contribution to 2040–2069/1980–2010 [87]. Increase in fertilizer rates food security are to be attained under climate change. decreased yield, implying that increasing fertilizer rates only do not address the  effects of climate on yield. This Author contributions suggests need for broader agronomic research integrat- Literature search, data analysis, and drafting the first manuscript: AO; critical ing fertilizers, sowing dates, and irrigation, since pre- review: EH, AS, IJH, SS, and TR; conceptualization and methodology, SM. All cipitation was predicted to decrease. Because earlier authors read and approved the final manuscript. projections under climate change revealed that high Funding fertilizer rate and late sowing would decrease yield by Open access funding provided by University of Debrecen. Also, support from 13 and 20% for the periods 2010–2069 and 2070–2099 Project no. TKP2021-NKTA-32 implemented with the support provided by the Ministry of Innovation and Technology of Hungary from the National [41]. Contradictory, a recent prediction indicated that Research, Development, and Innovation Fund financed under the TKP2021- soil fertility under climate change  will increase yield by NKTA funding scheme. 19.6% between 2021 and 2050 from the baseline of 3.5 t −1 Availability of data and materials ha (1981–2010) [43]. Interestingly, another simulation All data analysed during this study are included in this article. revealed a reduction in grain yield by 10–46% between 2080 and 2099 irrespective of soil fertility and crop man- Declarations agement. In fact, yield will decrease by an average of 2.8 −1 −1 t ha in intensive mineral fertilizer use and 2.7 t ha in Ethics approval and consent to participate This section is not applicable. integrated soil-crop management relative to the baseline −1 of 3.7 and 3.3 t ha (1986–2005) due to climate change Consent for publication [88]. Synthesizing the above results reveals that fertiliza- This section is not applicable. tion especially with nitrogen under climate change will reduce yield by year 2099. Hence, this raises the following Ocwa et al. Agriculture & Food Security (2023) 12:14 Page 16 of 18 Competing interests 14. Komarek AM, Thurlow J, Koo J, De Pinto A. Economywide effects of The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the climate-smart agriculture in Ethiopia. Agric Econ. 2019;50(6):765–78. content of this article.https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ agec. 12523. 15. Renwick LLR, Kimaro AA, Hafner JM, Rosenstock TS, Gaudin ACM. Maize- Author details Pigeonpea intercropping outperforms monocultures under drought. Institute of Land Use, Engineering and Precision Farming Technology, Front Sustain Food Syst. 2020;4:562663. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fsufs. Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences and Environmental Management, 2020. 562663. University of Debrecen, 138 Böszörményi Street, 4032 Debrecen, Hungary. 16. Madembo C, Mhlanga B, Thierfelder C. Productivity or stability? Exploring Department of Agriculture Production, Faculty of Agriculture, Kyambogo maize-legume intercropping strategies for smallholder Conservation University, Kyambogo, P. O. B. 1, Kampala, Uganda. Eötvös Loránd Research Agriculture farmers in Zimbabwe. Agricul Syst. 2020;185:102921. https:// Network (ELKH), Centre for Agricultural Research, Budapest, Hungary. doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agsy. 2020. 102921. Institute of Horticulture, University of Debrecen, 138 Böszörményi 17. Martinez MJ, Furst C. Simulating the capacity of rainfed food crop spe- Street, 4032 Debrecen, Hungary. Department of Physical Geography cies to meet social demands in sudanian savanna agro-ecologies. Land. and Geoinformatics, Faculty of Science and Technology, University 2021;10(8):827. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ land1 00808 27. of Debrecen, 4032 Debrecen, Hungary. 18. Shiferaw B, Prasanna BM, Hellin J, et al. Crops that feed the world 6 Past successes and future challenges to the role played by maize in Received: 9 August 2022 Accepted: 3 April 2023 global food security. Food Sec. 2011;3:307. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12571- 011- 0140-5. 19. Ranum P, Peña-Rosas JP, Garcia-Casal MN. Global maize production, uti- lization, and consumption. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2014;1312:105–12. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ nyas. 12396. 20. Chukwudi UP, Kutu FR, Mavengahama S. Influence of heat stress, varia- References tions in soil type, and soil amendment on the growth of three drought- 1. Roxburgh CW, Rodriguez D. Ex-ante analysis of opportunities for the tolerant maize varieties. Agronomy-Basel. 2021;11(8):1485. https:// doi. sustainable intensification of maize production in Mozambique. Agric org/ 10. 3390/ agron omy11 081485. Syst. 2016;142:9–22. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agsy. 2015. 10. 010. 21. Erenstein O, Jaleta M, Sonder K, Mottaleb K, Prasanna BM. Global maize 2. Choruma D, Balkovic J, Odume ON. Calibration and validation of the EPIC production, consumption and trade: trends and R&D implication. Food model for maize production in the Eastern Cape. South Africa Agronomy- Secur. 2022;4:1295–319. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12571- 022- 01288-7. Basel. 2019;9(9):1–16. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ agron omy90 90494. 22. Grote U, Fasse A, Nguyen TT, Erenstein O. Food security and the dynamics 3. Jat SL, Parihar CM, Singh AK, Kumar B, Choudhary M, Nayak HS, Parihar of wheat and maize value chains in Africa and Asia. Front Sustain Food MD, Parihar N, Meena BR. Energy auditing and carbon footprint under Syst. 2021;4:617009. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fsufs. 2020. 617009. long-term conservation agriculture-based intensive maize systems 23. Chen HX, Zhao Y, Feng H, Li HJ, Sun BH. Assessment of climate change with diverse inorganic nitrogen management options. Sci Total Environ. impacts on soil organic carbon and crop yield based on long-term fertili- 2019;664:659–68. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. scito tenv. 2019. 01. 425. zation applications in Loess Plateau, China. Plant Soil. 2015;390(1–2):401– 4. Doraiswamy PC, McCarty GW, Hunt ER, Yost RS, Doumbia M, Franzlueb- 17. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11104- 014- 2332-1. bers AJ. Modeling soil carbon sequestration in agricultural lands of Mali. 24. Ngugi LW, Rao KPC, Oyoo A, Kwena K. Opportunities for coping with Agric Syst. 2007;94(1):63–74. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agsy. 2005. 09. 011. climate change and variability through adoption of soil and water con- 5. Subedi R, Bhatta LD, Udas E, Agrawal NK, Joshi KD, Panday D. Climate- servation technologies in semi-arid Eastern Kenya. In: Adapting African smart practices for improvement of crop yields in mid-hills of Nepal. Agriculture to Climate Change: Transforming Rural Livelihoods. 2015. p. Cogent Food Agric. 2019;5(1):1631026. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 23311 932. 149–157. 2019. 16310 26. 25. Steward PR, Dougill AJ, Thierfelder C, Pittelkow CM, Stringer LC, Kudzala 6. Cao Q, Miao Y, Feng G, Gao X, Liu B, Liu Y, Li F, Khosla R, Mulla DJ, Zhang M, Shackelford GE. The adaptive capacity of maize-based conservation F. Improving nitrogen use efficiency with minimal environmental risks agriculture systems to climate stress in tropical and subtropical environ- using an active canopy sensor in a wheat-maize cropping system. Field ments: A meta-regression of yields. Agr Ecosyst Environ. 2018;251:194– Crop Res. 2017;214:365–72. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. fcr. 2017. 09. 033. 202. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agee. 2017. 09. 019. 7. Kikoyo DA, Nobert J. Assessment of impact of climate change and 26. Nwaogu C, Kassahun T, Eneche PUS. Climate change induced soil com- adaptation strategies on maize production in Uganda. Phys Chem Earth. paction: evaluating the adaptation measures to enhance maize yields 2016;93:37–45. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. pce. 2015. 09. 005. in a tropical humid acidic soil, Nigeria. In: climate change, hazards and 8. Huffman WE, Jin C, Xu Z. The economic impacts of technology and adaptation options: handling the impacts of a changing climate. Springer climate change: new evidence from US corn yields. Agric Econ. International Publishing AG, 2020;717–739. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978- 2018;49(4):463–79. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ agec. 12429. 3- 030- 37425-9_ 36. 9. Hauggaard-Nielsen H, Johansen A, Carter MS, Ambus P, Jensen ES. 27. Chen ZM, Xu YH, He Y, Zhou XH, Fan JL, Yu H, Ding WX. Nitrogen fertiliza- Annual maize and perennial grass-clover strip cropping for increased tion stimulated soil heterotrophic but not autotrophic respiration in resource use efficiency and productivity using organic farming practice cropland soils: A greater role of organic over inorganic fertilizer. Soil Biol as a model. Eur J Agron. 2013;47:55–64. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. eja. 2013. Biochem. 2018;116:253–64. 01. 004. 28. Bortoletto-Santos R, Cavigelli MA, Montes SE, Schomberg HH, Thompson 10. Syswerda SP, Robertson GP. Ecosystem services along a management A, Kramer AI, Polito M, Ribeiro C. Oil-based polyurethane-coated urea gradient in Michigan (USA) cropping systems. Agr Ecosyst Environ. reduces nitrous oxide emissions in a corn field in a Maryland loamy sand 2014;189:28–35. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agee. 2014. 03. 006. soil. J Cleaner Product. 2020;249:1–8. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jclep ro. 11. Srinivasarao C, Lal R, Kundu S, Babu MBBP, Venkateswarlu B, Singh AK. Soil 2019. 119329. carbon sequestration in rainfed production systems in the semiarid trop- 29. Zhang JT, Yang J, An PL, Ren W, Pan ZH, Dong ZQ, Han GL, Pan YY, Pan ics of India. Sci Total Environ. 2014;487:587–603. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. SF, Tian HQ. Enhancing soil drought induced by climate change and scito tenv. 2013. 10. 006. agricultural practices: Observational and experimental evidence from 12. Rurinda J, van Wijk MT, Mapfumo P, Descheemaeker K, Supit I, Giller KE. the semiarid area of northern China. Agric For Meteorol. 2017;243:74–83. Climate change and maize yield in southern Africa: what can farm man- https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agrfo rmet. 2017. 05. 008. agement do? Glob Change Biol. 2015;21(12):4588–601. https:// doi. org/ 30. Freduah BS, MacCarthy DS, Adam M, Ly M, Ruane AC, Timpong-Jones 10. 1111/ gcb. 13061. EC, Traore PS, Boote KJ, Porter C, Adiku SGK. Sensitivity of maize yield 13. Guardia G, Aguilera E, Vallejo A, Sanz-Cobena A, Alonso-Ayuso M, Que- in smallholder systems to climate scenarios in semi-arid regions of mada M. Eec ff tive climate change mitigation through cover cropping West Africa: accounting for variability in farm management practices, and integrated fertilization: A global warming potential assessment from Agronomy-Basel. 2019;9(10):639. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ agron omy91 a 10-year field experiment. J Cleaner Prod. 2019;241:118307. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jclep ro. 2019. 118307. O cwa et al. Agriculture & Food Security (2023) 12:14 Page 17 of 18 31. Liu P, Zhao HJ, Li Y, Liu ZH, Gao XH, Zhang YP, Sun M, Zhong ZW, Luo JF. uncertainties for maize in Panama: Farm information, climate projections, Corn yields with organic and inorganic amendments under changing and yield sensitivities. Agric For Meteorol. 2013;170:132–45. https:// doi. climate. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst. 2018;111(2–3):141–53. https:// doi. org/ 10. org/ 10. 1016/j. agrfo rmet. 2011. 10. 015. 1007/ s10705- 018- 9916-8. 50. He W, Yang JY, Qian B, Drury CF, Hoogenboom G, He P, Lapen D, Zhou 32. Wang Y, Huang YF, Fu W, Guo WQ, Ren N, Zhao YN, Ye YL. Efficient W. Climate change impacts on crop yield, soil water balance and nitrate physiological and nutrient use efficiency responses of maize leaves to leaching in the semiarid and humid regions of Canada. PLoS ONE. drought stress under different field nitrogen conditions. Agronomy. 2018;3(11):e0207370. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1371/ journ al. pone. 02073 70. 2020;10(4):523. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ agron omy10 040523. 51. Wang XL, Yan Y, Xu CC, Wang XY, Luo N, Wei D, Meng QF, Wang P. 33. Xie M, Tremblay N, Trembla G, Bourgeois G, Bouroubi MY, Wei Z. Weather Mitigating heat impacts in maize (Zea mays L) during the reproduc- effects on corn response to in-season nitrogen rates. Can J Plant Sci. tive stage through biochar soil amendment. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2013;93(3):407–17. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4141/ cjps2 012- 145. 2021;311:107321. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agee. 2021. 107321. 34. Gao WL, Man XM. Evaluation of the agronomic impacts on yield-scaled 52. Shi WJ, Tao FL. Vulnerability of African maize yield to climate change and N2O emission from wheat and maize fields in China. Sustainability variability during 1961–2010. Food Security. 2014;6(4):471–81. https:// doi. 2017;9(7):1201. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su907 1201.org/ 10. 1007/ s12571- 014- 0370-4. 35. Berhane M, Xu M, Liang ZY, Shi JL, Wei GH, Tian XH. Eec ff ts of long- 53. Falconnier GN, Corbeels M, Boote KJ, Affholder F, Adam M, MacCarthy DS, term straw return on soil organic carbon storage and sequestration Ruane AC, Nendel C, Whitbread AM, Justes E, Ahuja LR, Akinseye FM, Alou rate in North China upland crops: a meta-analysis. Global Change Biol. IN, Amouzou KA, Anapalli SS, Baron C, Basso B, Baudron F, Bertuzzi P, Chal- 2020;26(4):2686–2701. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ gcb. 15018 linor AJ, Chen Y, Deryng D, Elsayed ML, Faye B, Gaiser T, Galdos M, Gayler 36. Diacono M, Montemurro F. Long-term effects of organic amendments on S, Gerardeaux E, Giner M, Grant B, Hoogenboom G, Ibrahim ES, Kamali B, soil fertility. A review. Agron Sustain Develop. 2010;30(2):401–22. https:// Kersebaum KC, Kim SH, van der Laan M, Leroux L, Lizaso JI, Maestrini B, doi. org/ 10. 1051/ agro/ 20090 40. Meier EA, Mequanint F, Ndoli A, Porter CH, Priesack E, Ripoche D, Sida TS, 37. Leitner S, Pelster DE, Werner C, Merbold L, Baggs EM, Mapanda F, Butter- Singh U, Smith WN, Srivastava A, Sinha S, Tao FL, Thorburn PJ, Timlin D, bach-Bahl K. Closing maize yield gaps in sub-Saharan Africa will boost soil Traore B, Twine T, Webber H. Modelling climate change impacts on maize N O emissions. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2020;47:95–105. https:// doi. yields under low nitrogen input conditions in sub-Saharan Africa. Global org/ 10. 1016/j. cosust. 2020. 08. 018. Change Biol. 2020;26(10):942–5964. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ gcb. 15261. 38. Muller C, Elliott J, Pugh TAM, Ruane AC, Ciais P, Balkovic J, Deryng D, 54. Hunter MC, Kemanian AR, Mortensen DA. Cover crop effects on maize Folberth C, Izaurralde RC, Jones CD, Khabarov N, Lawrence P, Liu W, Reddy drought stress and yield. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2021;311:107294. https:// AD, Schmid E, Wang XH. Global patterns of crop yield stability under doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agee. 2020. 107294. additional nutrient and water inputs. PLoSONE. 2018. https:// doi. org/ 10. 55. Liang S, Li YF, Zhang XB, Sun ZG, Sun N, Duan YH, Xu MG, Wu LH. Response 1371/ journ al. pone. 01987 48. of crop yield and nitrogen use efficiency for wheat-maize cropping 39. Schut AGT, Traore PCS, Blaes X. Assessing yield and fertilizer response in system to future climate change in northern China. Agric For Meteorol. heterogeneous smallholder fields with UAVs and satellites. Field Crops 2018;262:310–21. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agrfo rmet. 2018. 07. 019. Res. 2018;221:98–107. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. fcr. 2018. 02. 018. 56. Hurisso TT, Davis JG, Chala A, Getachew A, Wolde-Meskel E. Impacts of 40. Verdi L, Mancini M, Napoli M, Vivoli R, Pardini A, Orlandini S, Dalla MA. Soil grinding and acidification of animal bones with coffee wastewater on plant carbon emissions from maize under different fertilization methods in an dry matter yield and recovery of phosphorus. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal. extremely dry summer in Italy. Italian J Agrometeorol Rivista Italiana Di 2021;52(10):1076–88. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00103 624. 2021. 18726 03. Agrometeorol. 2019; 24(2): 3–10. https:// doi. org/ 10. 13128/ ijam- 648 57. Racz D, Szoke L, Toth B, Kovacs B, Horvath E, Zagyi P, Duzs L. Szeles 41. Rurinda J, Mapfumo P, van Wijk MT, Mtambanengwe F, Rufino MC, AExamination of the productivity and physiological responses of Chikowo R, Giller KE. Managing soil fertility to adapt to rainfall vari- maize (Zea mays L) to Nitrapyrin and Foliar Fertilizer Treatments. Plants. ability in smallholder cropping systems in Zimbabwe. Field Crop Res. 2021;10(11):2426. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ plant s1011 2426. 2013;154:211–25. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. fcr. 2013. 08. 012. 58. Ren H, Li ZH, Cheng Y, Zhang JB, Liu P, Li RF, Yang QL, Dong ST, Zhang 42. Nezomba H, Mtambanengwe F, Rurinda J, Mapfumo P. Integrated soil JW, Zhao B. Narrowing Yield Gaps and Enhancing Nitrogen Utilization fertility management sequences for reducing climate risk in small- for Summer Maize (Zea mays L) by Combining the Eec ff ts of Varying holder crop production systems in southern Africa. Field Crop Res. Nitrogen Fertilizer Input and Planting Density in DSSAT Simulations. Front 2018;224:102–14. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. fcr. 2018. 05. 003. Plant Sci. 2020;11:560466. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpls. 2020. 560466. 43. Muluneh A. Impact of climate change on soil water balance, maize pro- 59. Tovihoudji PG, Akponikpe PBI, Adjogboto A, Djenontin JA, Agbossou duction, and potential adaptation measures in the rift valley drylands of EK, Bielders CL. Combining hill-placed manure and mineral fertilizer Ethiopia. J Arid Environ. 2020;179:104195. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jarid enhances maize productivity and profitability in northern Benin. env. 2020. 104195. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst. 2018;110(3):375–93. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 44. Munch T, Berg M, Mirschel W, Wieland R, Nendel C. Considering cost s10705- 017- 9872-8. accountancy items in crop production simulations under climate change. 60. Saleh GB, Min TD, Noordin WD, Halim RA, Anuar AR. Spatial variability of Eur J Agron. 2014;52:57–68. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. eja. 2013. 01. 005. soil and plant nutrients and their influence on maize grain yield. J Food 45. Li HD, Shi WJ, Wang B, An TT, Li S, Li SY, Wang JK. Comparison of the mod- Agric Environ. 2010;8(3–4):1313–25. eled potential yield versus the actual yield of maize in Northeast China 61. Jat RD, Jat HS, Nanwal RK, Yadav AK, Bana A, Choudhary KM, Kakraliya SK, and the implications for national food security. Food Secur. 2017;9(1):99– Sutaliya JM, Sapkota TB, Jat ML. Conservation agriculture and precision 114. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12571- 016- 0632-4. nutrient management practices in maize-wheat system: Eec ff ts on 46. Yu CQ, Huang X, Chen H, Huang GR, Ni SQ, Wright JS, Hall J, Ciais P, Zhang J, crop and water productivity and economic profitability. Field Crop Res. Xiao YC, Sun ZL, Wang XH, Yu L. Assessing the impacts of extreme agricul- 2018;222:111–20. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. fcr. 2018. 03. 025. tural droughts in china under climate and socioeconomic changes. Earths 62. Sapkota TB, Jat ML, Rana DS, Khatri-Chhetri A, Jat HS, Bijarniya D, Sutaliya Fut. 2018;6(5):689–703. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ 2017E F0007 68. JM, Kumar M, Singh LK, Jat RK, Kalvaniya K, Prasad G, Sidhu HS, Rai M, 47. Wu DL, Xu XX, Chen YL, Shao H, Sokolowski E, Mi GH. Eec ff t of different Satyanarayana T. Majumdar K Crop nutrient management using Nutrient drip fertigation methods on maize yield, nutrient and water productiv- Expert improves yield, increases farmers’ income and reduces green- ity in two-soils in Northeast China. Agric Water Manag. 2019;13:200–11. house gas emissions. Sci Rep. 2021;11:1564. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agwat. 2018. 10. 018.s41598- 020- 79883-x. 48. Saddique Q, Cai HJ, Xu JT, Ajaz A, He JQ, Yu Q, Wang YF, Chen H, Khan 63. Waqas MA, Li Y, Lal R, Wang XH, Sh SW, Zhu YC, Li JL, Xu MG, Wan YF, Qin MI, Liu DL, He L. Analyzing adaptation strategies for maize produc- XB, Gao QZ, Liu S. When does nutrient management sequester more tion under future climate change in Guanzhong Plain, China. Mitig carbon in soils and produce high and stable grain yields in China? Land Adapt Strat Glob Change. 2020;63(6):1879–93. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ Degrad Dev. 2020;31(15):1926–41. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ ldr. 3567. s11027- 020- 09935-0. 64. Waqas M.A, Li Y, Smith P, Wang XH, Ashraf MN, Noor MA, Amou M, Shi 49. Ruane AC, Cecil LD, Horton RM, Gordon R, McCollum R, Brown D, Kil- SW, Zhu YC, Li JL, Wan YF, Qin XB, Gao QZ, Liu S. The influence of nutrient lough B, Goldberg R, Greeley AP, Rosenzweig C. Climate change impact management on soil organic carbon storage, crop production, and yield Ocwa et al. Agriculture & Food Security (2023) 12:14 Page 18 of 18 stability varies under different climates. J Cleaner Prod. 2020;268:121922. 80. Allende-Montalban R, Martin-Lammerding D, Delgado MD, Porcel MA, https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jclep ro. 2020. 121922. Gabriel JL. Urease inhibitors effects on the nitrogen use efficiency in a 65. Danso I, Webber H, Bourgault M, Ewert F, Naab JB, Gaiser T. Crop manage- maize-wheat rotation with or without water deficit. Agriculture-Basel. ment adaptations to improve and stabilize crop yields under low-yielding 2021;11(7):1–19. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ agric ultur e1107 0684. conditions in the Sudan Savanna of West Africa. Eur J Agron. 2018;101:1– 81. Mo F, Wang JY, Zhou H, Luo CL, Zhang, XF, Li XY, Li FM, Xiong LB, Kavagi 9. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. eja. 2018. 08. 001. L, Nguluu SN, Xiong YC. Ridge-furrow plastic-mulching with balanced 66. De Sanctis G, Roggero PP, Seddaiu G, Orsini R, Porter CH, Jones JW. Long- fertilization in rainfed maize (Zea mays L.): An adaptive management in term no tillage increased soil organic carbon content of rain-fed cereal East African Plateau. J Environ Manag. 2017;236:100–12. https:// doi. org/ systems in a Mediterranean area. Eur J Agron. 2012;40:18–27. https:// doi. 10. 1016/j. agrfo rmet. 2017. 01. 014. org/ 10. 1016/j. eja. 2012. 02. 002. 82. Belcher K, Boehm M, Fulton M. An agroecosystem scale evaluation of 67. Feng XM, Gao HJ, La, R, Zhu P, Peng C, Deng AX, Zheng CY, Song ZW, the sustainability implications of carbon tax and carbon credit policies. J Zhang WJ. Nitrous oxide emission, global warming potential, and denitri- Sustain Agric. 2003;22(2):75–97. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1300/ J064v 22n02_ 06. fier abundances as affected by long-term fertilization on Mollisols of 83. Rurinda J, Mapfumo P, van Wijk MT, Mtambanengwe F, Rufino MC, Northeastern China. Archives Agron Soil Sci. 2019;65(13):1831–44. https:// Chikowo R, Giller KE. Comparative assessment of maize, finger millet and doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03650 340. 2019. 15789 59. sorghum for household food security in the face of increasing climatic 68. Maris SC, Capra F, Ardenti F, Chiodini ME, Boselli R, Taskin E, Puglisi E, risk. Eur J Agron. 2014;55:2941. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. eja. 2013. 12. 009. Bertora C, Poggianella L, Amaducci S, Tabaglio V, Fiorini A. Reducing N fer- 84. Gornott C, Hattermann F, Wechsung F. Yield gap analysis for Tanzania tilization without yield penalties in maize with a commercially available - The impacts of climate, management and socio-economic impacts seed dressing. Agronomy. 2021;11(3):407. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ agron on maize yields. Agriculture and Climate Change - Adapting Crops to omy11 030407. Increased Uncertainty Agri. 2015;29:231–231. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. 69. Aguegue MR, Adjovi NRA, Agbodjato NA, Noumavo PA, Assogba S, Salami proenv. 2015. 07. 287. H, SalakoVK, Ramon R, Baba-Moussa F, Adjanohoun A, Kakai RG, Baba- 85. Zhang JT, Yang J, An PL, Ren W, Pan ZH, Dong ZQ, Han GL, Pan YY, Pan moussa L. Efficacy of native strains of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on SF, Tian HQ. Enhancing soil drought induced by climate change and maize productivity on ferralitic soil in Benin. Agric Res. 2021. https:// doi. agricultural practices: Observational and experimental evidence from the org/ 10. 1007/ s40003- 021- 00602-7. semiarid area of northern China. Agric Forest Meteor. 2017;243:74–83. 70. Partey ST, Thevathasan NV, Zougmore RB, Preziosi RF. Improving maize https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agrfo rmet. 2017. 05. 008. production through nitrogen supply from ten rarely-used organic 86. Deng X, Huang Y, Qin ZC. Soil indigenous nutrients increase the resources in Ghana. Agrofor Syst. 2018;92(2):375–87. https:// doi. org/ 10. resilience of maize yield to climatic warming in China. Environ Res Lett. 1007/ s10457- 016- 0035-8. 2020;15(9):1–11. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1088/ 1748- 9326/ aba4c8. 71. Salazar O, Diaz R, Nario A, Videla X, Alonso-Ayuso M, Quemada M. 87. Chisanga CB, Phiri E, Chinene VRN, Chabala LM. Projecting maize yield Nitrogen fertilizer efficiency determined by the n-15 dilution technique under local-scale climate change scenarios using crop models: Sensitivity in maize followed or not by a cover crop in Mediterranean Chile. Agricul- to sowing dates, cultivar, and nitrogen fertilizer rates. Food Energy Secur. ture. 2021;11(8):721. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ agric ultur e1108 0721. 2020;9(4):1–17. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ fes3. 231. 72. Yan L, Zhang ZD, Zhang JJ, Gao Q, Feng GZ, Abelrahman AM, Chen 88. Amouzou KA, Lamers JPA, Naab JB, Borgemeister C, Vlek PLG, Becker Y. Eec ff ts of improving nitrogen management on nitrogen utilization, M. Climate change impact on water- and nitrogen-use efficiencies and nitrogen balance, and reactive nitrogen losses in a Mollisol with maize yields of maize and sorghum in the northern Benin dry savanna. Field monoculture in Northeast China. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2016;23(5):4576– Crop Res. 2019;235:104–17. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. fcr. 2019. 02. 021. 84. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11356- 015- 5684-z. 89. Naab JB, Mahama GY, Koo J, Jones JW, Boote KJ. Nitrogen and phospho- 73. Dawar K, Sardar K, Zaman M, Muller C, Sanz-Cobena A, Khan A, Borzouei rus fertilization with crop residue retention enhances crop productivity, A. Perez-Castillo AGEec ff ts of the nitrification inhibitor nitrapyrin and soil organic carbon, and total soil nitrogen concentrations in sandy-loam the plant growth regulator gibberellic acid on yield-scale nitrous oxide soils in Ghana. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst. 2015;102(1):33–43. https:// doi. org/ emission in maize fields under hot climatic conditions. Pedosphere. 10. 1007/ s10705- 015- 9675-8. 2021;31(2):323–31. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S1002- 0160(20) 60076-5. 90. Liu HT, Li J, Li X, Zheng YH, Feng SF, Jiang GM. Mitigating greenhouse 74. Jat SL, Parihar CM, Singh AK, Nayak HS, Meena BR, Kumar B, Parihar MD, gas emissions through replacement of chemical fertilizer with organic Jat ML. Differential response from nitrogen sources with and without manure in a temperate farmland. Science Bulletin. 2015;60(6):598–606. residue management under conservation agriculture on crop yields, https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11434- 014- 0679-6. water-use and economics in maize-based rotations. Field Crop Res. 91. Hou PF, Chang Y T, Lai JM, Chou KL, Tai SF, Tseng KC, Chow CN, Jeng 2019;236:96–110. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. fcr. 2019. 03. 017. SL, Huang HJ, Chang WC. Long-term effects of fertilizers with regional 75. Guo JJ, Fan JL, Xiang YZ, Zhang FC, Zheng J, Yan S, Yan FL, Hou XH, Li YP, climate variability on yield trends of sweet corn. Sustainability. Yang L. Eec ff ts of nitrogen type on rainfed maize nutrient uptake and grain 2020;12(9):3528. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su120 93528. yield. Agron J. 2021;113(6):5454–71. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ agj2. 20811. 92. Ghosh D, Brahmachari K, Das A, Hassan MM, Mukherjee PK, Sarkar S, 76. Parihar CM, Jat SL, Singh AK, Ghosh A, Rathore NS, Kumar B, Pradhan S, Dinda NK, Pramanick B, Moulick D, Maitra S, Hossain A. Assessment of Majumdar K, Satyanarayana T, Jat ML, Saharawat YS, Kuri BR, Saveipune D. energy budgeting and its indicator for sustainable nutrient and weed Eec ff ts of precision conservation agriculture in a maize-wheat-mungbean management in a rice-maize-green gram cropping system. Agronomy. rotation on crop yield, water-use and radiation conversion under a 2021;11(1):166. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ agron omy11 010166. semiarid agro-ecosystem. Agric Water Manag. 2017;192:306–19. https:// 93. Atakora WK, Kwakye K, Weymann D, Bruggemann N. Stimulus of nitrogen doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. agwat. 2017. 07. 021. fertilizers and soil characteristics on maize yield and nitrous oxide emis- 77. Feng WY, Yang F, Cen R, Liu J, Qu ZY, Miao QF, Chen HY. Eec ff ts of straw biochar sion from Ferric Luvisol in the Guinea Savanna agro-ecological zone of application on soil temperature, available nitrogen and growth of corn. J Environ Ghana. Sci Afr. 2019;6:1–11. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. sciaf. 2019. e00141. Manag. 2021;277:111331. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jenvm an. 2020. 111331. 94. Alibu S, Neuhoff D, Senthilkumar K, Becker M, Kopke U. Potential of culti- 78. Mosharrof M, Uddin MK, Sulaiman MF, Mia S, Shamsuzzaman SM, Haque vating dry season maize along a hydrological gradient of an inland valley ANA. Combined Application of Rice Husk Biochar and Lime Increases in Uganda. Agronomy-Basel. 2019;9(10):1–12. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ Phosphorus Availability and Maize Yield in an Acidic Soil. Agriculture. agron omy91 00606. 2021;11(8):793. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ agric ultur e1108 0793. 79. Srinivasarao C, Kundu S, Kumpawat BS, Kothari AK, Sodani SN, Sharma SK, Publisher’s Note Abrol V, Chary GR, Thakur PB, Yashavanth BS. Soil organic carbon dynam- Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in ics crop yields of maize (Zea mays)-black gram (Vigna mungo) rotation- published maps and institutional affiliations. based long term manurial experimental system in semi-arid Vertisols of western India. Trop Ecol. 2019;60(3):433–46. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s42965- 019- 00044-x.

Journal

Agriculture & Food SecuritySpringer Journals

Published: Jun 2, 2023

Keywords: Climate change; Drought; Fertilizers; Heat stress; Maize; Nitrogen; Temperature; Yield

There are no references for this article.