1.2 Detalhes do contato das pessoas capacitadas e instituições envolvidas na avaliação e documentação da tecnologia

Nome do projeto que facilitou a documentação/avaliação da Tecnologia (se relevante)

ICARDA Institutional Knowledge Management Initiative

Nome da(s) instituição(ões) que facilitou(ram) a documentação/ avaliação da Tecnologia (se relevante)

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

1.3 Condições em relação ao uso da informação documentada através de WOCAT

O/a compilador/a e a(s) pessoa(s) capacitada(s) aceitam as condições relativas ao uso de dados documentados através da WOCAT:

Sim

1.4 Declaração de sustentabilidade da tecnologia descrita

A tecnologia descrita aqui é problemática em relação a degradação da terra de forma que não pode ser declarada uma tecnologia de gestão sustentável de terra?

Não

2.1 Descrição curta da tecnologia

Definição da tecnologia:

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 Descrição detalhada da tecnologia

Descrição:

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 Fotos da tecnologia

2.5 País/região/locais onde a tecnologia foi aplicada e que estão cobertos nesta avaliação

2.6 Data da implementação

Indique o ano de implementação:

1999

2.7 Introdução da tecnologia

Especifique como a tecnologia foi introduzida:

• durante experiências/ pesquisa
• através de projetos/intervenções externas

3.1 Principal/principais finalidade(s) da tecnologia

• Melhora a produção
• Reduz, previne, recupera a degradação do solo
• Adaptar a mudanças climáticas/extremos e seus impactos
• Criar impacto econômico benéfico

3.2 Tipo(s) atualizado(s) de uso da terra onde a tecnologia foi aplicada

Uso do solo misturado dentro da mesma unidade de terra:

Sim

Especificar o uso misto da terra (culturas/ pastoreio/ árvores):

• Agropecuária (incl. agricultura e pecuária)

3.3 O uso do solo mudou devido à implementação da Tecnologia?

O uso do solo mudou devido à implementação da Tecnologia?

• Sim (Por favor, preencha as perguntas abaixo com relação ao uso do solo antes da implementação da Tecnologia)

Uso do solo misturado dentro da mesma unidade de terra:

Sim

Especificar o uso misto da terra (culturas/ pastoreio/ árvores):

• Agropecuária (incl. agricultura e pecuária)

Comentários:

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 Abastecimento de água

Abastecimento de água para a terra na qual a tecnologia é aplicada:

• Precipitação natural

3.5 Grupo de GST ao qual pertence a tecnologia

• Gestão integrada plantação-criação de animais
• Solo/cobertura vegetal melhorada
• Perturbação mínima ao solo

3.6 Medidas de GST contendo a tecnologia

Comentários:

The residues are partly retained and partly grazed.

3.7 Principais tipos de degradação da terra abordados pela tecnologia

3.8 Redução, prevenção ou recuperação da degradação do solo

Especifique o objetivo da tecnologia em relação a degradação da terra:

• Prevenir degradação do solo
• Recuperar/reabilitar solo severamente degradado

Comentários:

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 Desenho técnico da tecnologia

4.2 Informação geral em relação ao cálculo de entradas e custos

Especifique como custos e entradas foram calculados:

• por área de tecnologia

Especifique a moeda utilizada para os cálculos de custo:

• USD

4.3 Atividades de implantação

	Atividade	Periodicidade (estação do ano)
1.	Purchase Zero-Tillage Seeder

4.4 Custos e entradas necessárias para a implantação

	Especifique a entrada	Unidade	Quantidade	Custos por unidade	Custos totais por entrada	% dos custos arcados pelos usuários da terra
Equipamento	Zero-Tillage Seeder	piece	1,0	20000,0	20000,0
Custos totais para a implantação da tecnologia					20000,0
Custos totais para o estabelecimento da Tecnologia em USD					20000,0

Comentários:

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 Atividades recorrentes/manutenção

	Atividade	Periodicidade/frequência
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 Custos e entradas necessárias pata a manutenção/atividades recorrentes (por ano)

	Especifique a entrada	Unidade	Quantidade	Custos por unidade	Custos totais por entrada	% dos custos arcados pelos usuários da terra
Mão-de-obra	Weeding	Person-hour	1,0			100,0
Mão-de-obra	Seeding	Person-hour	2,0			100,0
Mão-de-obra	Fertilizer Application	Person-hour	0,5			100,0
Mão-de-obra	Harvesting	Person-hour	2,0			100,0
Equipamento	The Zero-Tillage Seeder (hiring cost)	Machine-hour	2,0	16,5	33,0	100,0
Equipamento	Sprayer (hiring cost for disease control)	Machine-hour	4,5	11,0	49,5	100,0
Equipamento	Spreader (hiring costs for nitrogenous fertilizer application)	Machine-hour	1,5	11,0	16,5	100,0
Equipamento	Combine (hiring cost for harvesting)	Machine-hour	2,0	47,5	95,0	100,0
Material vegetal	Seeds Wheat	Kilogram	160,0	0,4	64,0	100,0
Material vegetal	Seeds Faba Bean	Kilogram	120,0	0,48	57,6	100,0
Fertilizantes e biocidas	Baseline Fertilization	Quintal	2,5	19,9	49,75	100,0
Fertilizantes e biocidas	Nitrogenous Fertilization	Quintal	3,0	15,5	46,5	100,0
Fertilizantes e biocidas	Pesticide (for total weed control)	Liter	2,0	10,0	20,0	100,0
Fertilizantes e biocidas	Herbicide for grassy weeds	Liter	1,0	41,2	41,2	100,0
Fertilizantes e biocidas	Herbicide for broadleaf weeds and sedges	Liter	2,0	29,2	58,4	100,0
Fertilizantes e biocidas	Fungicide	Liter	1,5	40,0	60,0	100,0
Fertilizantes e biocidas	Herbicide for annual and perennial grasses	Liter	1,25	25,5	31,88	100,0
Fertilizantes e biocidas	Insecticide	Liter	0,1	66,8	6,68	100,0
Outros	Casual Labour	Person-day	12,0	5,3	63,6	100,0
Custos totais para a manutenção da tecnologia					693,61
Custos totais de manutenção da Tecnologia em USD					693,61

Comentários:

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 Fatores mais importantes que afetam os custos

Descreva os fatores mais determinantes que afetam os custos:

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 Clima

5.2 Topografia

Indique se a tecnologia é aplicada especificamente em:

• Não relevante

5.3 Solos

Caso disponível anexe a descrição completa do solo ou especifique as informações disponíveis, p. ex. tipo de solo, PH/acidez do solo, nitrogênio, capacidade de troca catiônica, salinidade, etc.

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

5.4 Disponibilidade e qualidade de água

A salinidade da água é um problema?

Sim

Ocorre inundação da área?

Não

5.5 Biodiversidade

5.6 Características dos usuários da terra que utilizam a tecnologia

5.7 Área média de terrenos utilizados pelos usuários de terrenos que aplicam a Tecnologia

5.8 Propriedade de terra, direitos de uso da terra e de uso da água

Propriedade da terra:

• Indivíduo, não intitulado
• Indivíduo, intitulado

Direitos do uso da terra:

• Indivíduo

Direitos do uso da água:

• Comunitário (organizado)
• Indivíduo

Os direitos de uso da terra são baseados em um sistema jurídico tradicional?

Sim

Especifique:

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 Acesso a serviços e infraestrutura

6.1 Impactos no local mostrados pela tecnologia

Impactos socioeconômicos

Produção

Renda e custos

Impactos socioculturais

Impactos ecológicos

Ciclo hídrico/escoamento

Solo

Biodiversidade: vegetação, animais

Clima e redução de riscos de desastre

6.2 Impactos externos mostrados pela tecnologia

6.3 Exposição e sensibilidade da tecnologia às mudanças climáticas graduais e extremos/desastres relacionados ao clima (conforme o ponto de vista dos usuários da terra)

Mudança climática gradual

Mudança climática gradual

	Estação do ano	aumento ou diminuição	Como a tecnologia lida com isso?
Temperatura anual		aumento	bem
Precipitação pluviométrica anual		redução/diminuição	bem

Extremos (desastres) relacionados ao clima

Desastres climatológicos

	Como a tecnologia lida com isso?
Queimada	não bem

Desastres biológicos

	Como a tecnologia lida com isso?
Doenças epidêmicas	não bem

6.4 Análise do custo-benefício

Como os benefícios se comparam aos custos de implantação (do ponto de vista dos usuários da terra)?

Como os benefícios se comparam aos custos recorrentes/de manutenção(do ponto de vista dos usuários da terra)?

Comentários:

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 Adoção da tecnologia

• 1-10%

De todos aqueles que adotaram a Tecnologia, quantos o fizeram espontaneamente, ou seja, sem receber nenhum incentivo/ pagamento material?

• 11-50%

6.6 Adaptação

A tecnologia foi recentemente modificada para adaptar-se as condições variáveis?

Sim

Outros (especificar):

The demand of the farmers

Especifique a adaptação da tecnologia (desenho, material/espécie, 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 Pontos fortes/vantagens/oportunidades da tecnologia

Pontos fortes/vantagens/oportunidades na visão do usuário da terra
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.

Pontos fortes/vantagens/oportunidades na visão do/a compilador/a ou de outra pessoa capacitada
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 Pontos fracos, desvantagens/riscos da tecnologia e formas de superá-los

Pontos fracos/desvantagens/riscos na visão do usuário da terra	Como eles podem ser superados?
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.

Pontos fracos/vantagens/riscos na visão do/a compilador/a ou de outra pessoa capacitada	Como eles podem ser superados?
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 Métodos/fontes de informação

7.2 Referências às publicações disponíveis

Título, autor, ano, 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).

Disponível de onde? Custos?

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

Título, autor, ano, 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).

Disponível de onde? Custos?

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

Título, autor, ano, 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.

Disponível de onde? Custos?

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

Título, autor, ano, ISBN:

CLCA Project Page

Disponível de onde? Custos?

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

7.3 Links para informações on-line relevantes

Título/ descrição:

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

Título/ descrição:

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

Título/ descrição:

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

Título/ descrição:

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

Título/ descrição:

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

Título/ descrição:

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

URL:

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

Título/ descrição:

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

Título/ descrição:

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

Título/ descrição:

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

Título/ descrição:

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