1.2 Coordonnées des personnes-ressources et des institutions impliquées dans l'évaluation et la documentation de la Technologie

Nom du projet qui a facilité la documentation/ l'évaluation de la Technologie (si pertinent)

ICARDA Institutional Knowledge Management Initiative

Nom du ou des institutions qui ont facilité la documentation/ l'évaluation de la Technologie (si pertinent)

International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) - Liban

1.3 Conditions relatives à l'utilisation par WOCAT des données documentées

Le compilateur et la(les) personne(s) ressource(s) acceptent les conditions relatives à l'utilisation par WOCAT des données documentées:

Oui

1.4 Déclaration sur la durabilité de la Technologie décrite

Est-ce que la Technologie décrite ici pose problème par rapport à la dégradation des terres, de telle sorte qu'elle ne peut pas être déclarée comme étant une technologie de gestion durable des terres?

Non

2.1 Courte description de la Technologie

Définition de la Technologie:

Conservation Agriculture (CA) is a "ready-to-scale concept" in agriculture that allows a sustainable agricultural production and mitigation of climate change. The documented CA focuses on a dryland mixed system, including a biennial rotation of legume and cereals with integrated livestock management. CA has positive benefits on soil health and significantly reduces the needed inputs (e.g. fuel, labour) and workload for farmers.

2.2 Description détaillée de la Technologie

Description:

Land degradation leading to desertification is an increasingly important problem in the dry land regions of the globe. This does not only affect the bio-physical aspects such as carbon storage, but also the lives of local land users. Land degradation is often initiated by the lack of vegetation cover as is often a consequence of overgrazing and over-ploughing (i.e mismanagement). Furthermore, climate change leads to droughts, intensified rainfall events, increased temperature, and more extreme weather events. These compromised climatic conditions enhance land degradation. This leads to less fertile soils, reducing yields and consequently deteriorates the income and lives of local farmers. Taking the consequence and scale of degradation into account, natural resource conservation interventions are urgently required.

As the lack of soil cover is an, if not the, essential initiating factor in the desertification process, it should be maximally addressed. In the light of this, CA has been developed, based on three leading principles: i) minimizing soil disturbances or no-tillage, ii) maintaining a permanent soil cover with mulch, and iii) adequate crop rotations. Overall, the three principles prevent land degradation and can also rehabilitate the land. This is because soil organic matter is maintained in/on the soil and the erosive power of raindrops are broken by the soil cover. Therefore, CA aims for more sustainable resource use (land and water use) and to optimize climate-resilient and integrated crop-livestock systems to sustainably intensify production in fragile dry areas.

Tunisia is a country that experiences the previously described pattern and results of desertification and where smallholder farmers are largely dependent on livestock for income generation. However, the livestock competes with the concept of CA as plant residues (stubble) are normally grazed by the livestock. Conservation agriculture propagates no or minimum soil disturbance/ tillage. However, the purchase of a zero-tillage seeder machine appears to be a bottleneck due to high costs since they are hardly produced locally. Nevertheless, there are farmers in the semi -arid areas of Tunisia, who adopted the technology and experience significant benefits such as increased soil fertility and over time increasing yields. In addition, as erosion rates are high in this rainfed area of 300 to 600 mm annual precipitation, a well-covered soil will reduce runoff and loss of top soil. Since ploughing is restricted, the workload and the demanded fuel is reduced, resulting in decreased costs and labour with respect to the conventional practices. Furthermore, integrated crop-livestock is practiced by limiting livestock to graze only the freshly harvested fields while producing manure to enhance soil health (organic fertilization and increase in soil organic matter).
Additionally, according to the third principle of CA, legumes were introduced in the agricultural system (crop rotation), besides the conventional cereal (e.g. durum wheat or barley). Specifically, faba bean is promising, as it has nitrogen fixing effects, enhancing soil health, and increasing and diversifying farm income. Vetch and other forage mixtures have also been successfully introduced to provide farmers with nutritious feed for livestock within the CA concept. In irrigated areas (e.g. parts in Algeria), the practice of CA has an additional benefit as it increases the irrigation water use efficiency due to less evaporation and better infiltration.

The previous agro-pastoral farming practices changed under CA to an integrated crop-livestock system where soil cover is permanent. This mixed system consist of firstly weed control. Secondly, zero-tillage seeding is done directly into the soil even if covered with e.g. mulch/stubble. Faba bean and/or wheat are seeded and rotated yearly. This is beneficial as legumes fix nitrogen in the soil, lowering the amount of nitrogenous fertilizer needed. Thirdly, required fertilizers (for wheat additional nitrogenous fertilizer) is applied with a spreader. Fourthly, herbicides, pesticides, insecticides and fungicides are applied with a sprayer for disease control. Fifthly, the field is harvested with a combine. The stubble is then partly grazed by the sheep and goats until there remains a 1-2 cm residue layer i.e. mulch. For one hectare this accounts for a thirty day grazing period for thirty goats or sheep. This results in an integrated Crop-Livestock system under CA (CLCA), as the stubble provides feed for livestock while the livestock provides the soil with manure.

The land users that have adopted CA have indicated that they extremely appreciate the reduction in work, also the cost of labour and fuel, etc. In addition, they saw increased yields due to improved soil health. However, this beneficial impact could only be observed in the long-term since yields take time to increase, which can be considered as a weakness as the small holder farmer tends to prioritize short term profits. Another weakness is that the livestock is constrained since residues ought to remain on the field.

In conclusion, even though there are bottlenecks, the technology of conservation agriculture is a solution to combat desertification while improving the lives of local land users through the process.

Information and data presented is partly made available through the project “Use of conservation agriculture in crop-livestock systems (CLCA) in the drylands for enhanced water use efficiency, soil fertility and productivity in NEN and LAC countries” funded by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), managed by the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) and implemented in Tunisia by the National Agricultural Research Institute (INRAT).

2.3 Photos de la Technologie

2.5 Pays/ région/ lieux où la Technologie a été appliquée et qui sont couverts par cette évaluation

2.6 Date de mise en œuvre de la Technologie

Indiquez l'année de mise en œuvre:

1999

2.7 Introduction de la Technologie

Spécifiez comment la Technologie a été introduite: :

• au cours d'expérimentations / de recherches
• par le biais de projets/ d'interventions extérieures

3.1 Principal(aux) objectif(s) de la Technologie

• améliorer la production
• réduire, prévenir, restaurer les terres dégradées
• s'adapter au changement et aux extrêmes climatiques et à leurs impacts
• créer un impact économique positif

3.2 Type(s) actuel(s) d'utilisation des terres, là où la Technologie est appliquée

Les divers types d'utilisation des terres au sein du même unité de terrain: :

Oui

Précisez l'utilisation mixte des terres (cultures/ pâturages/ arbres):

• Agropastoralisme (y compris les systèmes culture-élevage intégrés)

3.3 Est-ce que l’utilisation des terres a changé en raison de la mise en œuvre de la Technologie ?

Est-ce que l’utilisation des terres a changé en raison de la mise en œuvre de la Technologie ?

• Oui (Veuillez remplir les questions ci-après au regard de l’utilisation des terres avant la mise en œuvre de la Technologie)

Les divers types d'utilisation des terres au sein du même unité de terrain: :

Oui

Précisez l'utilisation mixte des terres (cultures/ pâturages/ arbres):

• Agropastoralisme (y compris les systèmes culture-élevage intégrés)

Commentaires:

The land use has not necessarily changed as in the previous agro-pastoral system, livestock was also allowed to graze the field, providing it with manure. The difference is that under CA the livestock is not allowed to fully graze the land, leaving a soil cover.

3.4 Approvisionnement en eau

Approvisionnement en eau des terres sur lesquelles est appliquée la Technologie:

• pluvial

3.5 Groupe de GDT auquel appartient la Technologie

• gestion intégrée cultures-élevage
• Amélioration de la couverture végétale/ du sol
• perturbation minimale du sol

3.6 Mesures de GDT constituant la Technologie

Commentaires:

The residues are partly retained and partly grazed.

3.7 Principaux types de dégradation des terres traités par la Technologie

3.8 Prévention, réduction de la dégradation ou réhabilitation des terres dégradées

Spécifiez l'objectif de la Technologie au regard de la dégradation des terres:

• prévenir la dégradation des terres
• restaurer/ réhabiliter des terres sévèrement dégradées

Commentaires:

The technology of CA prevents land degradation as the soil cover prevents erosion because the cover breaks the erosive power of rainfall and wind. Also, CA has the ability to rehabilitate as the content (like organic matter and carbon) of the soil cover (e.g. mulch/stubble) remains in the soil eventually improving the soil quality.

4.1 Dessin technique de la Technologie

4.2 Informations générales sur le calcul des intrants et des coûts

Spécifiez la manière dont les coûts et les intrants ont été calculés:

• par superficie de la Technologie

Indiquez la monnaie utilisée pour le calcul des coûts:

• dollars américains

4.3 Activités de mise en place/ d'établissement

	Activité	Calendrier des activités (saisonnier)
1.	Purchase Zero-Tillage Seeder

4.4 Coûts et intrants nécessaires à la mise en place

	Spécifiez les intrants	Unité	Quantité	Coûts par unité	Coût total par intrant	% des coût supporté par les exploitants des terres
Equipements	Zero-Tillage Seeder	piece	1,0	20000,0	20000,0
Coût total de mise en place de la Technologie					20000,0
Coût total de mise en place de la Technologie en dollars américains (USD)					20000,0

Commentaires:

The Zero-Tillage-Seeder can be bought as a community. This would lower the effective cost per farmer. Also, it is possible to hire Zero-Tillage Seeder.

4.5 Activités d'entretien/ récurrentes

	Activité	Calendrier/ fréquence
1.	Weeding (Total weed control)	Year 1 Early-October
2.	Seeding Faba Bean	Year 1 Mid-October
3.	Apply Baseline Fertilization	Year 1 Mid-October
4.	Apply Herbicide	Year 1 Mid-October
5.	Apply Fungicide and Insecticide	Year 1 March-Early April
6.	Limited Grazing/Harvesting	Year 1 Late-April/May
7.	Weeding (Total weed control)	Year 2 Early-November
8.	Seeding Wheat	Year 2 Mid-November
9.	Apply Baseline Fertilization	Year 2 Mid-November
10.	Apply Nitrogenous Fertilization	Year 2 December-January-February
11.	Apply Herbicide	Year 2 December
12.	Apply Fungicide	Year 2 March-April
13.	Limited Grazing/Harvesting	Year 2 Late-June/Early-July

4.6 Coûts et intrants nécessaires aux activités d'entretien/ récurrentes (par an)

	Spécifiez les intrants	Unité	Quantité	Coûts par unité	Coût total par intrant	% des coût supporté par les exploitants des terres
Main d'œuvre	Weeding	Person-hour	1,0			100,0
Main d'œuvre	Seeding	Person-hour	2,0			100,0
Main d'œuvre	Fertilizer Application	Person-hour	0,5			100,0
Main d'œuvre	Harvesting	Person-hour	2,0			100,0
Equipements	The Zero-Tillage Seeder (hiring cost)	Machine-hour	2,0	16,5	33,0	100,0
Equipements	Sprayer (hiring cost for disease control)	Machine-hour	4,5	11,0	49,5	100,0
Equipements	Spreader (hiring costs for nitrogenous fertilizer application)	Machine-hour	1,5	11,0	16,5	100,0
Equipements	Combine (hiring cost for harvesting)	Machine-hour	2,0	47,5	95,0	100,0
Matériel végétal	Seeds Wheat	Kilogram	160,0	0,4	64,0	100,0
Matériel végétal	Seeds Faba Bean	Kilogram	120,0	0,48	57,6	100,0
Engrais et biocides	Baseline Fertilization	Quintal	2,5	19,9	49,75	100,0
Engrais et biocides	Nitrogenous Fertilization	Quintal	3,0	15,5	46,5	100,0
Engrais et biocides	Pesticide (for total weed control)	Liter	2,0	10,0	20,0	100,0
Engrais et biocides	Herbicide for grassy weeds	Liter	1,0	41,2	41,2	100,0
Engrais et biocides	Herbicide for broadleaf weeds and sedges	Liter	2,0	29,2	58,4	100,0
Engrais et biocides	Fungicide	Liter	1,5	40,0	60,0	100,0
Engrais et biocides	Herbicide for annual and perennial grasses	Liter	1,25	25,5	31,88	100,0
Engrais et biocides	Insecticide	Liter	0,1	66,8	6,68	100,0
Autre	Casual Labour	Person-day	12,0	5,3	63,6	100,0
Coût total d'entretien de la Technologie					693,61
Coût total d'entretien de la Technologie en dollars américains (USD)					693,61

Commentaires:

Assuming a biennial rotation (Legume-Cereal), inputs and costs for the establishment of one hectare under the technology are displayed in the table. The costs for solely faba bean is 332.8 USD per hectare.

4.7 Facteurs les plus importants affectant les coûts

Décrivez les facteurs les plus importants affectant les coûts :

The initial purchase of the zero-tillage machine (20 000 USD) is dominantly affecting the costs of the technology. However, it should be taken into account, that this machine serves the long term. Because the area under description is dominated by small-scale farmers, access to zero-tillage machines is ensured through hiring private entrepreneurs or through the purchase of machines by farmers’ associations rather than individual farmers. Also, it is important to note that the additional costs of conservation agriculture mainly consists of the machine, the weeding control and the seeding of the legumes. Other costs are either similar or reduced with respect to conventional agriculture. For example, conventional agriculture requires three hours of ploughing and 1 hour of sowing. While conservation agriculture only needs half an hour for chemical weeding, 1 hour for sowing and does not require ploughing. This relates to reduced inputs such as fuel.

5.1 Climat

5.2 Topographie

Indiquez si la Technologie est spécifiquement appliquée dans des:

• non pertinent

5.3 Sols

Si disponible, joignez une description complète du sol ou précisez les informations disponibles, par ex., type de sol, pH/ acidité du sol, capacité d'échange cationique, azote, salinité, etc.

The top soil organic matter is relatively high as consequence of conservation agriculture.

5.4 Disponibilité et qualité de l'eau

La salinité de l'eau est-elle un problème? :

Oui

La zone est-elle inondée?

Non

5.5 Biodiversité

5.6 Caractéristiques des exploitants des terres appliquant la Technologie

5.7 Superficie moyenne des terres utilisées par les exploitants des terres appliquant la Technologie

5.8 Propriété foncière, droits d’utilisation des terres et de l'eau

Propriété foncière:

• individu, sans titre de propriété
• individu, avec titre de propriété

Droits d’utilisation des terres:

• individuel

Droits d’utilisation de l’eau:

• communautaire (organisé)
• individuel

Est-ce que les droits d'utilisation des terres sont fondés sur un système juridique traditionnel?

Oui

Précisez:

Land use rights in Tunisia have a long history with religious (e.g. melk) influences and French influences. This resulted in that currently most lands are private owned or state owned,

5.9 Accès aux services et aux infrastructures

6.1 Impacts sur site que la Technologie a montrés

Impacts socio-économiques

Production

Revenus et coûts

Impacts socioculturels

Impacts écologiques

Cycle de l'eau/ ruissellement

Sols

Biodiversité: végétale, animale

Réduction des risques de catastrophe et des risques climatiques

6.2 Impacts hors site que la Technologie a montrés

6.3 Exposition et sensibilité de la Technologie aux changements progressifs et aux évènements extrêmes/catastrophes liés au climat (telles que perçues par les exploitants des terres)

Changements climatiques progressifs

Changements climatiques progressifs

	Saison	Augmentation ou diminution	Comment la Technologie fait-elle face à cela?
températures annuelles		augmente	bien
précipitations annuelles		décroît	bien

Extrêmes climatiques (catastrophes)

Catastrophes climatiques

	Comment la Technologie fait-elle face à cela?
feu de végétation	pas bien

Catastrophes biologiques

	Comment la Technologie fait-elle face à cela?
maladies épidémiques	pas bien

6.4 Analyse coûts-bénéfices

Quels sont les bénéfices comparativement aux coûts de mise en place (du point de vue des exploitants des terres)?

Quels sont les bénéfices comparativement aux coûts d'entretien récurrents (du point de vue des exploitants des terres)?

Commentaires:

The maintenance of conservation agriculture is positively experienced because of the reduced workload and inputs as the additional costs of e.g. weeding and pest control are not larger than the original costs of weeding and ploughing. However, the establishment costs are considered negative due to the significant costs of the zero-tillage machine. In the long term, the improved soil conditions should have maximum benefits.

6.5 Adoption de la Technologie

• 1-10%

De tous ceux qui ont adopté la Technologie, combien d'entre eux l'ont fait spontanément, à savoir sans recevoir aucune incitation matérielle, ou aucune rémunération? :

• 11-50%

6.6 Adaptation

La Technologie a-t-elle été récemment modifiée pour s'adapter à l'évolution des conditions?

Oui

autre (précisez):

The demand of the farmers

Spécifiez l'adaptation de la Technologie (conception, matériaux/ espèces, etc.):

The farmers demanded different dimensions for the Zero-Tillage-seeder, related to their desired inter rows spaces e.g. a wider seeder so more area is seeded in the same time.

6.7 Points forts/ avantages/ possibilités de la Technologie

Points forts/ avantages/ possibilités du point de vue de l'exploitant des terres
Conservation Agriculture (CA) reduces the costs and workload with respects to conventional farming. For example, in conventional agriculture the field was ploughed, which costed machine hours. This cost is cancelled out by conservation agriculture, following the three principles. On top of that, this results in less costs such as depreciation of the plough and less consumed fuel.
CA leads to improved soil conditions and reduced/prevented land degradation which leads to increased biomass-production. This does benefit the land user. However, these benefits are noticeable in the long term. So, conservation agriculture is therefore significantly beneficial and (economically) important for family farms, where the land is passed on to future generations.
In irrigated areas, conservation agriculture leads to improved irrigation water use efficiency because of less water evaporation from the soil surface. Additionally, in flood irrigated areas, the soil is better protected and not flushed away. Farmers that have limited amount of irrigation water consider this a great benefit. In Algeria for example, the impact of CA practices resulted in a 30–40% reduction in the use of irrigation water and a two- to three-fold increase in barley and wheat production without the use of better seeds.

Points forts/ avantages/ possibilités du point de vue du compilateur ou d'une autre personne ressource clé
In Tunisia, it has been proven that CA based on Zero tillage and soil residue retention vs conventional agriculture contributes to make wheat production more resilient to climate change through enhancing wheat yield (15%), improvement of water use efficiency (13% to 18%), increase organic carbon accumulation (0.13 ton/ha/year to 0.18 ton/ha/year-). The reduction of soil loss caused by soil water erosion varies between 1.7 ton/ha/year to 4.6 ton/ha/year of soil loss.
CA prevents desertification. This is important as the desertification is increasing in dry lands. Thereby, it reduces the socio-economic capacity of the rural population, because of deteriorated biomass-production. Hence conservation agriculture is important to develop capacity in the rural areas of the dry lands as it ensures increased yields (i.e. higher income)
Soil microbial activity is an indicator for soil fertility. Preliminary results showed that soil microbial activity was higher under CA than conventional practices for different studied soil layers (0-15 cm, 15-25 cm and 25-45 cm).
Regarding the impact of CA on natural resources, especially soil health and water efficiency. Scientific evidences show that soil loss due to erosion reduced by 14 percent, some 62 kilograms per hectare under CA practices compared to conventional practices.

6.8 Faiblesses/ inconvénients/ risques de la Technologie et moyens de les surmonter

Faiblesses/ inconvénients/ risques du point de vue de l’exploitant des terres	Comment peuvent-ils être surmontés?
The competition between livestock is identified as a major issue in terms of effectiveness and adoptability of conservation agriculture (CA). Livestock grazes the stubble and crop residues, reducing the amount of soil cover on the field, thus lowering the protection and improvement of the soil. And as most farmers rely on livestock, this conflict between livestock and CA lowers the adoption rate of the technology.	This can be addressed through integrated smart livestock management. The approach should aim at minimizing the harm to soil cover, while maximizing the nutrition intake of livestock. The 30/30-model, in which the optimal trade-off between soil cover and grazing period is found, offers such solution. Here 30 sheep or goats may graze one hectare for thirty days. This leaves enough soil cover and meets livestock demand.
The price and availability of the zero-tillage seeder is crucial in the farmer's decision to adopt CA. The purchase of such a machine is namely very high for a farmer. It is unlikely that a farmer is willing to invest this huge amount as the farmer prefers profit in the short term.	Investments (private and government) are needed to boost the manufacturing of national made zero-tillage seeder. This would increase the availability of the machine and decrease the price. Furthermore, farmers may organize themselves into communitiy user groups and cooperations hence, lowering the cost per farmer. However, good governance and planning of machine use is essential, as tension may develop during the short sowing period for the use of the machine.
The risks of pests and weeds increase during first years of the transition from conventional tillage to CA because of the residues left on the field and the change in the weeds flora. These form a good basis for disease development.	In the short term this can be overcome by using herbicides and fungicides. However, this might be paired with other risks. Therefore, there should be research into alternative pest controls measures, such as intercropping or the introduction of natural enemies.

Faiblesses/ inconvénients/ risques du point de vue du compilateur ou d'une autre personne ressource clé	Comment peuvent-ils être surmontés?
The low capacity of farmers to invest in CA, specifically a zero-tillage seeder, is a weakness. This is due to the lack of government support and due to the small scale of most farms (80% of the Tunisian farmers have less than 10 ha of land).	Iimprove institutional support by for example the government. The government can support farmers by giving subsides to allow the purchase of a zero-tillage seeder machine. The wider scale adoption of CA requires a change in commitment and behavior of all stakeholders. Such changes call for sustained policy and institutional support that provides both incentives and motivations to encourage farmers to adopt components of CA practices and improve them over time.
The increasing use of pesticides for weeding and pest control is a growing concern and risk. Pesticides may have harming effects on the soil, the biodiversity and the public health.	Alternatives to pesticides can overcome this risk. However, research is needed to scrutinize this and if it is cost-effective. Possible alternative approaches are intercropping and the introduction of natural enemies. This would not only mitigate the risk of pests and weeding, but also enhance soil health and biodiversity.

7.1 Méthodes/ sources d'information

7.2 Références des publications disponibles

Titre, auteur, année, ISBN:

Amir Souissi, Bahri Haithem, Hatem Cheikh M'hamed, Mohamed Chakroun, Salah Ben Youssef, Aymen Frija, Mohamed Annabi. (7/8/2020). Effect of Tillage, Previous Crop, and N Fertilization on Agronomic and Economic Performances of Durum Wheat (Triticum durum Desf. ) under Rainfed Semi-Arid Environment. Agronomy, 10(8).

Disponible à partir d'où? Coût?

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/11886

Titre, auteur, année, ISBN:

Amar Rouabhi, Abdelmalek Laouar, Abdelhamid Mekhlouf, Boubaker Dhehibi. (1/3/2019). Socioeconomic assessment of no-till in wheat cropping system: a case study in Algeria. New Medit, 18(1).

Disponible à partir d'où? Coût?

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/9761

Titre, auteur, année, ISBN:

Bahri Haithem, Mohamed Annabi, Hatem Cheikh M'hamed, Aymen Frija. (1/11/2019). Assessing the long-term impact of conservation agriculture on wheat-based systems in Tunisia using APSIM simulations under a climate change context. Science of the Total Environment, 692, pp. 1223-1233.

Disponible à partir d'où? Coût?

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/10157

Titre, auteur, année, ISBN:

CLCA Project Page

Disponible à partir d'où? Coût?

https://mel.cgiar.org/projects/clca2

7.3 Liens vers les informations pertinentes en ligne

Titre/ description:

Zied Idoudi, Nasreddine Louahdi, Mina Devkota Wasti, Zahra Djender, Aymen Frija, Mourad Rekik. (26/4/2020). Public-Private Partnership for enhanced conservation agriculture practices: the case of Boudour Zero-Till seeder in Algeria. Lebanon: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA).

URL:

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/11047

Titre/ description:

Mourad Rekik, Santiago López Ridaura, Hatem Cheikh M'hamed, Zahra Djender, Boubaker Dhehibi, Aymen Frija, Mina Devkota Wasti, Udo Rudiger, Enrico Bonaiuti, Dina Najjar, Zied Idoudi. (26/11/2019). Use of Conservation Agriculture in Crop-Livestock Systems (CLCA) in the Drylands for Enhanced Water Use Efficiency, Soil Fertility and Productivity in NEN and LAC Countries – Project Progress Report: Year I - April 2018 to March 2019. Jordan: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA).

URL:

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/10444

Titre/ description:

Udo Rudiger, Hatem Cheikh M'hamed. (1/5/2019). Inspired by Nature - A Tunisian Farmer’s Perspective on Sustainable Integration of Crop and Livestock. (Short version).

URL:

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/10013

Titre/ description:

Peter Fredenburg, Colin Piggin, Michael Devlin. (30/11/2012). Conservation agriculture: opportunities for intensified farming and environmental conservation in dry areas. Aleppo, Syria: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA).

URL:

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/5073

Titre/ description:

Hichem Ben Salem. (15/12/2015). Strategic Practical Options for Integrating Conservation Agriculture Cropping and Livestock Systems. Amman, Jordan: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA).

URL:

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/4999

Titre/ description:

Hichem Ben Salem. (4/5/2016). Recent trends in conservation agriculture.

URL:

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/4771

Titre/ description:

Aymen Frija. (26/11/2016). Conservation Agriculture: strengthening crop production in marginal areas. URL: https://globalfutures.cgiar.org/2016/11/28/conservation-agriculture-strengthening-crop-production-in-marginal-areas/

URL:

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/6120

Titre/ description:

Hajer Guesmi, Hichem Ben Salem, Nizar Moujahed. (1/9/2019). Integration crop-livestock under conservation agriculture system. Journal of New Science, 65(1), pp. 4061-4065.

URL:

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/11423

Titre/ description:

Bahri Haithem, Mohamed Annabi, Hatem Cheikh M'hamed, Aymen Frija. (1/11/2019). Assessing the long-term impact of conservation agriculture on wheat-based systems in Tunisia using APSIM simulations under a climate change context. Science of the Total Environment, 692, pp. 1223-1233.

URL:

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/10157

Titre/ description:

Ayoub Fouzai, Maroua Smaoui, Aymen Frija, Boubaker Dhehibi. (5/5/2019). Adoption of Conservation Agriculture Technologies by Smallholder Farmers in the semiarid region of Tunisia: Resource constraints and partial adoption. Journal of New Sciences, 6(1), pp. 105-114.

URL:

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/9988