Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-mmrw7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-06T03:49:28.334Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Pasture cropping for sustainable agricultural production in African drylands

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 October 2025

Judie van Diepen
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Kevin Z. Mganga*
Affiliation:
Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University , Utrecht, The Netherlands
*
Corresponding author: Kevin Z. Mganga; Email: k.z.mganga@uu.nl
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

African dryland farming systems integrate crop and livestock production. In these systems, cropland and livestock productivities are intricately connected to support livelihoods of pastoral and agropastoral communities inhabiting African drylands. However, achieving sustainable increases in crop and livestock production under the prevailing conditions of low external inputs, soil degradation and climate variability and vulnerability to climate change, remains a great challenge in African drylands. Thus, to address these inherent challenges and achieve food security in the region, there is a need to adopt sustainable agricultural systems and practices. Pasture cropping, a no-tillage system where annual cereal crops are sown into perennial pastures during their dormant stage, has great potential to diversify African dryland farming systems and enhance overall cropland productivity. This can be linked to its contribution to increased perennial vegetation cover that protects the soil from agents of erosion, improving soil structure and soil hydrological properties, accumulation of organic matter, reducing N leaching, promoting C sequestration and weed control. Despite its great potential, pasture cropping in African drylands is still at its infancy stage. This review examines the potential of pasture cropping as a sustainable agricultural production system in African drylands. Specifically, we describe its salient features, benefits and challenges and explore its applicability to the environmental and socio-economic conditions of African drylands. Pasture cropping shows promise for improving agricultural productivity and sustainability in the African drylands. However, to achieve its full potential, significant adaptations are needed to tailor the system to match prevailing local socio-economic and environmental conditions, including climate and local adaptation, species selection, socio-economic constraints and economic viability among farming communities.

Topics structure

Information

Type
Review
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Table 1. Main characteristics of traditional production systems in African drylands

Figure 1

Table 2. Characteristics of different types of African drylands

Figure 2

Figure 1. African drylands defined by the aridity index. (Source: Wei et al., 2021).

Figure 3

Figure 2. Summary of the main benefits and impact of pasture cropping system in African drylands related to farm productivity, soil health and livestock grazing.

Figure 4

Table 3. Condition and necessities before and after pasture cropping system

Figure 5

Table 4. Characteristics of selected perennial grasses native to African drylands

Author comment: Pasture cropping for sustainable agricultural production in African drylands — R0/PR1

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Review: Pasture cropping for sustainable agricultural production in African drylands — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your submission. Your manuscript presents an intriguing exploration of pasture cropping in African drylands, highlighting its potential environmental and biophysical benefits. However, there are several areas that could be strengthened to enhance the overall impact and clarity of the review.

First, the manuscript relies heavily on theoretical claims about the benefits of pasture cropping, yet there is a lack of empirical data from studies specifically conducted in African drylands. The assertions regarding improvements in soil health, water retention, and long-term sustainability would be more compelling if supported by concrete data, particularly from localized field trials or case studies within the African context. Without such evidence, the conclusions remain speculative. Additionally, the manuscript includes numerous citations from studies conducted in the U.S. and Australia (e.g., Millar and Badgery (2009), Franzluebbers et al. (2014), Singer et al. (2009), etc), but lacks relevant research specific to Africa. It would be beneficial to include studies or data directly relevant to African drylands or, at the very least, discuss whether findings from Australia are applicable to the African context, considering differences in soil types, climate, and socio-economic conditions.

Additionally, while the term “African drylands” is used throughout, the vast diversity within these regions is not adequately addressed. Different areas of Africa experience distinct ecological, climatic, and socio-economic conditions, and it is important to recognize these variations rather than treat the region as a homogenous entity. A more nuanced approach would highlight how pasture cropping may perform differently across various dryland environments.

The manuscript also touches on challenges related to climate adaptation, species selection, and socio-economic constraints, but these issues are not explored in sufficient depth. More detailed discussion is needed on the specific obstacles that farmers face in these regions, as well as potential solutions or strategies to overcome them. This includes addressing practical issues like seed access, invasive species, and the role of livestock grazing. Moreover, while socio-economic factors such as limited mechanization and access to credit are mentioned, the role of policy support and financial mechanisms in facilitating the adoption of pasture cropping would be an important addition to the discussion.

While the biophysical benefits of pasture cropping are emphasized, the socio-economic and cultural aspects that influence its adoption are not given enough attention. Farmers' knowledge, access to resources, land tenure systems, and market dynamics all play crucial roles in determining whether pasture cropping will be feasible or sustainable. A more comprehensive exploration of these factors, particularly in resource-constrained settings, is necessary for a complete understanding of the system’s potential.

The manuscript primarily highlights the positive aspects of pasture cropping but does not discuss potential trade-offs or risks in sufficient detail. For instance, the potential for lower yields in the short term is acknowledged, but the manuscript does not adequately clarify how these lower yields might be compensated or under what conditions pasture cropping can improve productivity. A more balanced discussion, including trade-offs such as competition for resources between crops and pasture or the costs of implementation, would provide a clearer picture of the system’s viability.

The reliance on studies from regions outside Africa, such as Australia and the USA, is another point of concern. While these studies provide valuable insights, their direct applicability to African drylands is unclear. The manuscript would benefit from including more research that is either conducted in African drylands or addresses how findings from other regions can be applied in the African context. Additionally, specific case studies from Africa would greatly enhance the relevance of the review.

There are some contradictions in the discussion about the long-term sustainability of pasture cropping. The manuscript suggests that pasture cropping can be profitable over the long term but also warns that low-input strategies risk degrading resources. This contradiction needs to be resolved by clarifying the environmental conditions under which pasture cropping enhances soil health or when it may lead to degradation. Providing examples of where the system succeeds or fails in maintaining long-term soil health would help reconcile this issue.

In terms of water retention, the manuscript claims that pasture cropping improves water retention but does not provide enough detail on the specific conditions under which this occurs. The text should clarify the mechanisms by which pasture cropping influences water retention, particularly in the context of drought-prone drylands. More information is needed on how pasture cropping compares to conventional methods in improving soil moisture retention under different environmental conditions.

The section on grazing intensity also lacks clarity. While the benefits of sustainable grazing are mentioned, the manuscript does not provide enough detail on how different levels of grazing intensity affect soil health in dryland conditions. It is important to consider that different livestock species, such as goats, cows, and sheep, have varying impacts on soil compaction, fertility, and nutrient cycling. More examples from African drylands, particularly regarding soil compaction, fertility, and nutrient cycling under varying grazing intensities, would improve this section.

Review: Pasture cropping for sustainable agricultural production in African drylands — R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

This is a good review. The Authors have highlighted critical aspects of pasture cropping in the context of dryland ecosystems relatable to the current situations.

Minor grammatical mistakes - Check and correct the sentences on lines 110 and 212.

Review: Pasture cropping for sustainable agricultural production in African drylands — R0/PR4

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

The manuscript provides are review of Pasture cropping in African drylands. The readers are first introduced to the concepts of pasture cropping over about ~150 lines of text and then delve into the specifics of pasture cropping in African drylands over about ~ 50 lines of text. The concluding statements feel very general not veery specific to the African setting. Grammatically the paper is well written, though I did spy a couple of typo’s and inconsistent text size used (see line 200 for example).

Overall I feel the manuscript could do more to delve into the specific issues, or locations within African setting where more depth could be added. A greater balance in space of the manuscript dedicated to introduction (~ 100 lines), introducing pasture cropping and diving into the specifics for the African setting I feel would be a good way to focus which areas need more detail and attention, at the expense of other sections. A map of African drylands would be helpful for a start, and roughly highlighting regions where pasture cropping might be of greater value given the findings of the literature review would provide a much more useful depth to this manuscript.

The intro feels to be quite long. It could be cut down to pertinent details and culled by 10-20%. I also don’t feel this has been written with the journal’s audience in mind. Please consider the intended audience with the level of description used. For example, Lines 71-77, contain a basic description of drylands, but given this journal is fundamentally about drylands, I think this is unnecessary to include here. Instead, the ideas introduced in lines 99-104 would be likely of more interest to introduce in the prime position of second introduction paragraph.

While I note that the authors have reached for a wide range of recent literature, there could be more supporting examples from a wider range of sources, or greater explanation of logic inferred in the points made (see specific comments below). For example the MIDAS model described in lines 168-171, has been around since late 1980’s, yet only one example from one location has been described here, from Western Australia, which is a location drawn on in the next paragraphs. Are there further examples from elsewhere to draw upon or has this been turned into a model that may be more useful for an African setting?

Specific comments

Line 40 and 42: incorrect use of “it’s”. These are both possessive pronouns not contractions, please use “its” instead in both of these instances. Check throughout, however I don’t believe I saw this issue again

Line 195: “soi” typo. Change to soil.

Lines 336-338: Why is establishing indigenous perennial pastures challenged by destruction by livestock? Is it trampling, overgrazing or sensitive to grazing in early growth stages? More detail could be added here to describe these mechanisms.

Line 337 and line 442: Why is rainfall variability a “challenging issue” if the species are “adapted to the environmental conditions of African drylands” ? These statements seem at odds with each other, or might need more explaining.

Lines 368-369: What are the African-dryland specific environmental and socioeconomic challenges? I don’t feel this has been described well in the paper or capture with specific regard in the conclusion.

Recommendation: Pasture cropping for sustainable agricultural production in African drylands — R0/PR5

Comments

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled “Potential of pasture cropping as a sustainable agricultural production system in African drylands" to Cambridge Prisms: Drylands. I have now received comments from three reviewers. After careful consideration of their evaluations and my own assessment, I believe the manuscript addresses an important and timely topic. However, I concur with Reviewers 1 and 3 that it requires major revisions before it can be reconsidered for publication. Both reviewers highlighted several critical areas where the manuscript needs substantial improvement. In particular, the lack of empirical data is a key concern, as the manuscript relies heavily on literature from other regions and includes insufficient data or case studies drawn from African drylands. It is important to either incorporate region-specific evidence or explicitly discuss the applicability (and limitations) of extrapolating findings from other contexts. I also suggest that the authors define a clear and explicit objective for the review and conduct a systematic search of the literature to support it. Additionally, the manuscript should better acknowledge the ecological and socio-economic diversity within African drylands, offering a more nuanced discussion of how pasture cropping might vary in implementation and outcomes across different contexts. Finally, the authors should consider restructuring the manuscript (shortening the introduction and expanding the discussion of socio-economic, institutional, and policy dimensions) to sharpen the focus and improve the manuscript’s overall relevance. I encourage the authors to revise the manuscript thoroughly, taking into account all reviewer comments.

Decision: Pasture cropping for sustainable agricultural production in African drylands — R0/PR6

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Pasture cropping for sustainable agricultural production in African drylands — R1/PR7

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Review: Pasture cropping for sustainable agricultural production in African drylands — R1/PR8

Conflict of interest statement

None!

Comments

The manuscript presents a clear, well-structured, and original contribution to the field. I have no further comments and recommend acceptance in its current form.

Recommendation: Pasture cropping for sustainable agricultural production in African drylands — R1/PR9

Comments

Thank you for re-submitting the manuscript “Pasture cropping for sustainable agricultural production in African drylands” to Cambridge Prisms: Drylands. I have received the revisions from one reviewer, who recommended the publication of the manuscript. I consider that the text has substantially improved compared to the previous version, particularly through the inclusion of relevant empirical data. I appreciate and acknowledge the work done by the authors, but I believe that further revisions are still necessary before the manuscript can be accepted for publication.

General comments:

First, in my previous revision, I mentioned that the authors should define a clear and explicit objective for the review and conduct a systematic literature search to support it. I still consider that the objective needs to be improved (see specific comment), and the criteria for the literature search must be made explicit to ensure the study can be replicated. For instance, the authors should specify the keywords used in the literature search.

Second, I suggest including a summary figure that incorporates the main results from African dryland studies presented in the Productivity, Soil Health, and Grazing sections.

Third, developing a conceptual model that highlights the potential benefits and challenges of pasture cropping systems in African drylands would be useful to organize and structure the final sections (see specific comments regarding these sections).

Finally, the manuscript requires a thorough review to correct grammatical and typographical errors.

Specific comments:

Lines 30-32. Please remove the “s” from “croplands” and the word “of” after “productivities”. This is an example of the broader point I mentioned earlier. I did not review these issues exhaustively throughout the manuscript, but I encourage the authors to revise the entire text carefully.

Lines 99-126. I suggest linking the ideas of both paragraphs to pasture cropping systems. One option could be to include a final sentence in each paragraph that makes this connection explicit.

Lines 152-153. I suggest refining the objective. Please specify the methodological approach used to achieve the aim of highlighting the potential of pasture cropping in African drylands. As the manuscript does not include any quantitative analysis, the objective should be to describe this potential based on a literature review. Therefore, the objective could also explicitly include the identification of knowledge gaps related to the implementation of these systems in African drylands.

Line 157. Incorporating pastures in cropland seems not to be the same as pasture cropping as was previously defined. Please, clarify.

Lines 162-164. Is there a reference to support this assertion?

Line 182. de Blécourt et al., 2021 is missing from the reference list.

Line 189. Please change this number to 2.2 and apply the same correction to the subsequent ones.

224-255. This section still lacks African data in the new version. I suggest either removing it or reducing its length and moving it to a final discussion on knowledge gaps for African drylands.

286-311. This section does not discuss the findings for African drylands. It could have been written as an introduction before the results of the present review. I suggest removing it. If the authors consider it important to retain some of these ideas, I suggest briefly including them in the introduction or ensuring that the discussion incorporates the findings relevant to Africa.

Lines 313-327. This section also does not analyze any findings. I suggest moving it to the end of the manuscript (before conclusions) and structuring it under the heading ‘Challenges of the Pasture Cropping System in African Drylands,’ including a discussion of the knowledge gaps identified in the review regarding the implementation of pasture cropping in African drylands.

Line 329. I suggest removing this subtitle as the new version of the manuscript has already addressed this topic for African drylands.

Line 368. Consider adding ‘for native species’ to the topic sentence of the paragraph to enhance its clarity and focus.

422-433. Most of the conclusions here are stated as assertions. I suggest rephrasing them in the potential tense, given the general lack of information identified in the present study.

Line 582. Please, complete the reference.

Decision: Pasture cropping for sustainable agricultural production in African drylands — R1/PR10

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Pasture cropping for sustainable agricultural production in African drylands — R2/PR11

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Recommendation: Pasture cropping for sustainable agricultural production in African drylands — R2/PR12

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Pasture cropping for sustainable agricultural production in African drylands — R2/PR13

Comments

No accompanying comment.