Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Productivity limits and potentials of the principles of conservation agriculture



One of the primary challenges of our time is to feed a growing and more demanding world population with reduced external inputs and minimal environmental impacts, all under more variable and extreme climate conditions in the future1,2,3,4. Conservation agriculture represents a set of three crop management principles that has received strong international support to help address this challenge5,6, with recent conservation agriculture efforts focusing on smallholder farming systems in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia7. However, conservation agriculture is highly debated, with respect to both its effects on crop yields8,9,10 and its applicability in different farming contexts7,11,12,13. Here we conduct a global meta-analysis using 5,463 paired yield observations from 610 studies to compare no-till, the original and central concept of conservation agriculture, with conventional tillage practices across 48 crops and 63 countries. Overall, our results show that no-till reduces yields, yet this response is variable and under certain conditions no-till can produce equivalent or greater yields than conventional tillage. Importantly, when no-till is combined with the other two conservation agriculture principles of residue retention and crop rotation, its negative impacts are minimized. Moreover, no-till in combination with the other two principles significantly increases rainfed crop productivity in dry climates, suggesting that it may become an important climate-change adaptation strategy for ever-drier regions of the world. However, any expansion of conservation agriculture should be done with caution in these areas, as implementation of the other two principles is often challenging in resource-poor and vulnerable smallholder farming systems, thereby increasing the likelihood of yield losses rather than gains. Although farming systems are multifunctional, and environmental and socio-economic factors need to be considered14,15,16, our analysis indicates that the potential contribution of no-till to the sustainable intensification of agriculture is more limited than often assumed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type



Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Comparison of yield in no-till versus conventional tillage systems in relation to the other two principles of conservation agriculture.
Figure 2: Comparison of rainfed crop yield in no-till versus conventional tillage systems in relation to the other two principles of conservation agriculture as a function of climate.
Figure 3: Comparison of yield in no-till versus conventional tillage systems in relation to the other two principles of conservation agriculture over time.


  1. Foley, J. A. et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 337–342 (2011)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Lobell, D. B. et al. Prioritizing climate change adaptation needs for food security in 2030. Science 319, 607–610 (2008)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Godfray, H. C. J. & Garnett, T. Food security and sustainable intensification. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 369, 20120273 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J. & Befort, B. L. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 20260–20264 (2011)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. FAO. Save and Grow: A Policymaker’s Guide to the Sustainable Intensification of Smallholder Crop Production 1–37 (FAO, 2011)

  6. Hobbs, P. R., Sayre, K. & Gupta, R. The role of conservation agriculture in sustainable agriculture. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 363, 543–555 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Stevenson, J. R., Serraj, R. & Cassman, K. G. Evaluating conservation agriculture for small-scale farmers in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 187, 1–10 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Giller, K. E., Witter, E., Corbeels, M. & Tittonell, P. Conservation agriculture and smallholder farming in Africa: the heretics’ view. Field Crops Res. 114, 23–34 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Rusinamhodzi, L. et al. A meta-analysis of long-term effects of conservation agriculture on maize grain yield under rain-fed conditions. Agron. Sust. Dev. 31, 657–673 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Brouder, S. M. & Gomez-Macpherson, H. The impact of conservation agriculture on smallholder agricultural yields: a scoping review of the evidence. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 187, 11–32 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Andersson, J. A. & Giller, K. E. in Contested Agronomy: Agricultural Research in a Changing World (eds Sumberg, J. & Thompson, J. ) Ch. 2 22–46 (Earthscan, 2012)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Giller, K. E. et al. A research agenda to explore the role of conservation agriculture in African smallholder farming systems. Field Crops Res. 124, 468–472 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Friedrich, T., Derpsch, R. & Kassam, A. Overview of the global spread of conservation agriculture. Field Actions Sci. Rep. 6, 1941 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Godfray, H. C. et al. Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327, 812–818 (2010)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Sachs, J. et al. Monitoring the world’s agriculture. Nature 466, 558–560 (2010)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Palm, C., Blanco-Canqui, H., DeClerck, F., Gatere, L. & Grace, P. Conservation agriculture and ecosystem services: An overview. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 187, 87–105 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Erenstein, O., Sayre, K., Wall, P., Hellin, J. & Dixon, J. Conservation agriculture in maize- and wheat- based systems in the (sub)tropics: lessons from adaptation initiatives in South Asia, Mexico, and Southern Africa. J. Sustain. Agric. 36, 180–206 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Grassini, P. & Cassman, K. G. High-yield maize with large net energy yield and small global warming intensity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 1074–1079 (2012)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Corbeels, M. et al. Understanding the impact and adoption of conservation agriculture in Africa: a multi-scale analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 187, 155–170 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Serraj, R. & Siddique, K. H. M. Conservation agriculture in dry areas. Field Crops Res. 132, 1–6 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. International Center for Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) Geoinformatics Unit. (2014)

  22. Cook, B. I., Smerdon, J. E., Seager, R. & Coats, S. Global warming and 21st century drying. Clim. Dyn (in the press)

  23. Dai, A. Increasing drought under global warming in observations and models. Nature Clim. Change 3, 52–58 (2013)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  24. Farooq, M., Flower, K. C., Jabran, K., Wahid, A. & Siddique, K. H. M. Crop yield and weed management in conservation agriculture. Field Crops Res. 117, 172–183 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Govaerts, B. et al. Conservation agriculture and soil carbon sequestration: between myth and farmer reality. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 8, 97–122 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Erenstein, O. Crop residue mulching in tropical and semi-tropical countries: an evaluation of residue availability and other technological implications. Soil Tillage Res. 67, 115–133 (2002)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  27. Hijmans, R. J., Cameron, S. E., Parra, J. L., Jones, P. G. & Jarvis, A. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 25, 1965–1978 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. UNEP. World Atlas of Desertification, 2nd edn (eds Middleton, N. & Thomas, D. ) (Edward Arnold, 1997)

  29. Hedges, L. V., Gurevitch, J. & Curtis, P. S. The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology. Ecology 80, 1150–1156 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Adams, D. C., Gurevitch, J. & Rosenberg, M. S. Resampling tests for meta-analysis of ecological data. Ecology 78, 1277–1283 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2013)

  32. Canty, A. & Ripley, B. boot: Bootstrap R (S-Plus) Functions. R package v.1.3-11. (2014)

Download references


We are grateful to the National Key Science and Technology Project of China for supporting X.Q.L. with grant number 2014ZX07101-012.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



C.v.K., B.A.L., and X.Q.L. conceived the project. All authors contributed to the literature search, except N.v.G. and R.T.V. C.M.P., X.Q.L., J.L., K.J.v.G., B.A.L., and M.E.L. extracted data from publications and contributed to construction of the database. C.M.P., X.Q.L., K.J.v.G., and N.v.G. conducted analyses. C.M.P. and X.Q.L. wrote the manuscript draft and all authors contributed to interpretation of the results and writing of the final paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cameron M. Pittelkow.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Extended data figures and tables

Supplementary information

Supplementary Data

Database of yield comparisons used in the meta-analysis. (XLSX 470 kb)

Supplementary Information

List of references for publications used in the meta-analysis. (PDF 348 kb)

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pittelkow, C., Liang, X., Linquist, B. et al. Productivity limits and potentials of the principles of conservation agriculture. Nature 517, 365–368 (2015).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing