# No-tillage and intercropping improve the yield and profitability of maize-cotton rotations in Northern Benin

Pierrot Lionel Yemadje, Tobi Moriaque Akplo, Lucien Imorou, Emmanuel Sêkloka, Pablo Tittonell

► To cite this version:

Pierrot Lionel Yemadje, Tobi Moriaque Akplo, Lucien Imorou, Emmanuel Sêkloka, Pablo Tittonell. No-tillage and intercropping improve the yield and profitability of maize-cotton rotations in Northern Benin. Experimental Agriculture, 2025, 61, pp.e23. 10.1017/S0014479725100136. hal-05246463

HAL Id: hal-05246463

https://hal.science/hal-05246463v1

Submitted on 9 Sep 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
RESEARCH ARTICLE

# No-tillage and intercropping improve the yield and profitability of maize-cotton rotations in Northern Benin

Pierrot Lionel Yemadje¹,²,³ ID, Tobi Moriaque Akplo⁴ ID, Lucien Imorou¹ ID, Emmanuel Sekloka¹,⁵ ID and Pablo Tittonell³,⁶,⁷ ID

¹Institute of Cotton Research (IRC), Cotonou, Benin, ²CIRAD, UPR AIDA, Cotonou, Benin, ³AIDA, Univ Montpellier, CIRAD, Montpellier, France, ⁴Research Unity of Soil Microbiology and Soil Conservation, Laboratory of Soil Sciences, Faculty of Agronomic Sciences, University of Abomey-Calavi, Abomey-Calavi, Benin, ⁵Faculty of Agronomy, Department of Science and Techniques of Plant Production (D/STPV), University of Parakou, Parakou, Benin, ⁶CIRAD, UPR AIDA, Montpellier, France and ⁷Groningen Institute of Evolutionary Life Sciences, Groningen University, Groningen, The Netherlands

**Corresponding authors:** Pierrot Lionel Yemadje; Email: pierrot-lionel.yemadje@cirad.fr and Tobi Moriaque Akplo; Email: moriaqueakplo@gmail.com

(Received 06 November 2024; revised 06 July 2025; accepted 08 July 2025)

## Abstract

This study investigated the effect of conservation agriculture (CA) practices (e.g. no-tillage (NT) and maize-soybean (MS) intercrops) on the yield and profitability of maize and cotton within the first two years of a crop rotation system. A factorial design that compared two tillage practices (conventional tillage, CT and NT) and two cropping systems (sole maize, M and MS) was implemented on an experimental station in Northern Benin. All treatments were replicated thrice in 2022 and 2023. Soybean yield, maize grain yield and yield components, and seed-cotton yield and yield components were measured. Gross margin, labour productivity, and benefit-cost ratio were calculated, and a sensitivity analysis was done on the economic indicators under five scenarios (S0: gross margin calculation based on actual costs; S1: 30% higher fertiliser price; S2: 30% lower fertiliser price; S3 and S4, respectively: considering +/-1 standard deviation to the maize grain + soybean and seed-cotton yield). Tillage options and cropping systems significantly affected maize and cotton performance, but effects tended to vary between seasons. Treatment NT+MS produced the highest grain yield (4487 kg ha⁻¹) and rain use efficiency (4.12 kg mm⁻¹) in 2022, while CT+M produced the highest grain yield (3195 kg ha⁻¹) and rain use efficiency (2.84 kg mm⁻¹) in 2023. In the case of cotton, NT produced higher seed-cotton yield (1720 kg ha⁻¹), boll number (7.38 bolls/plant), and rainfall use efficiency (1.56 kg mm⁻¹) compared to CT in 2022. In 2023, cotton preceded by maize-soybean intercrops (NT+MS and CT+MS) produced significantly higher yield, aboveground and belowground biomass than cotton preceded by sole maize (NT+M and CT+M). For maize plus soybean, treatment NT+MS resulted in a significant increase in the gross margin, with an average of 582 US$ ha⁻¹ with respect to CT+M under all scenarios in 2022, whereas CT+M and NT+MS attained a significantly higher maize/ soybean gross margin in 2023. In the case of cotton, NT increased gross margin by 90-314% compared to CT across the sensitivity analysis scenarios in 2022. In 2023, cotton preceded by MS intercrops (NT+MS and CT+MS) showed a higher gross margin than preceded by sole crops (NT+M and CT+M) across all scenarios. To the well-documented effects of diversification on crop productivity, this study adds evidence on its positive impact on economic performance in a West African context. On-farm research and rural extension are necessary to further fine-tune these practices to fit the reality of smallholder cotton-based cropping systems of Benin.

**Keywords:** Agroecological transition; conservation agriculture; profitability; maize-legume intercropping; Cotton/maize rotation
Introduction

Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) is one of the main tradable crops of West African countries, representing the main agricultural export of Benin. Its production significantly contributes to the region's economy, accounting for nearly 30% of exports and contributing 7% to the Gross Domestic Product (Soumaré et al., 2020). It also benefits food crops and livestock production as African farmers often rotate cotton crops with cereals such as millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.), sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench), and maize (Zea mays L.). These second crops benefit from inputs and capital goods financed through cotton contract farming. However, while global cotton yields have been rising steadily since the 1960s, cotton yields in West Africa have been stagnant since the 1980s and have even declined in some countries, such as Benin [The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) statistics: https://faostat.fao.org/].

Soil fertility decline and climate change are some of the most important limiting factors to crop
yield in West Africa (Dossouhoui et al., 2025; Sultan et al., 2010). Poor soil fertility, low and erratic
rains coupled with inappropriate tillage, monocultures, over-exploitation of land, inadequate use
of inputs, and the burning of crop residues are key factors in soil fertility decline (Dossouhoui
et al., 2023; Hermann et al., 2016). In Benin, cotton is primarily grown on tropical ferruginous
soils (Acrisols or Lixisols) in the central and northern regions, where the rainfall ranges between
900 and 1200 mm (Sodjinou et al., 2015). The soils in these cotton-producing zones exhibit
notable deficiencies in nutrients (N, P, and K) and organic matter, and are susceptible to water
erosion (Youssouf and Lawani, 2000). There is, therefore, a growing need to shift towards more
sustainable land management practices that reduce soil disturbance, enhance the addition of
organic matter, and promote crop diversification to build and maintain soil organic matter (SOM)
stocks.

Several sustainable land management techniques, and in particular conservation agriculture (CA) have been tested worldwide and in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) (Akplo et al., 2025; Yemadje et al., 2025; Grabowski et al., 2014; Obalum et al., 2011; Temesgen et al., 2012; Thierfelder et al., 2013). CA has been promoted as ‘a concept of crop production at a high and sustained production level to achieve acceptable profit while saving the resources along with conserving the environment’ (FAO 2019). CA is a set of techniques, including minimum soil disturbance or no-tillage (NT), permanent soil cover, diversified cropping systems, and integrated weed management (Friedrich et al., 2012; Hobbs et al., 2008). There is scientific evidence that CA practices and, in particular, NT can reduce many adverse effects of conventional farming practices such as soil erosion (Akplo et al., 2024), SOM decline (Martinsen et al., 2019), water loss (Wolschick et al., 2021), soil physical degradation (Fernández-Ugalde et al., 2009; Obalum and Obi, 2010), fuel use (Jat et al., 2019), and crop yield (Yemadje et al., 2022). Several authors (Akplo et al., 2025; Omulo et al., 2022; Thierfelder et al., 2015) highlighted the economic advantages of CA, such as fuel savings, increased work productivity, and profitability. However, it is well established in the literature that the agronomic and economic benefits of CA may take time to manifest, with positive yield effects becoming apparent over a period of 5 to 15 years (Corbeels et al., 2014; Salem et al., 2015).

Among CA practices, diversified cropping systems through intercropping and crop rotation have explicitly been recommended to achieve sustainable intensification (Rapholo et al., 2020). Intercropping entails the simultaneous (or relayed) cultivation of two or more crops in the same field (Smith and McSorley, 2000), and it has been demonstrated to have many advantages. Legume-based intercropping systems were shown to be a beneficial for soil functioning and rhizobacterial community diversity, while contributing to the reduction of external inputs (Sánchez-Navarro et al., 2024; Y. Wang et al., 2025), enhanced crop yields and land equivalent ratios, improved soil N and P content and carbon (C) sequestration and storage (W. Wang et al., 2025), and stimulation of beneficial organisms (Cuartero et al., 2022; Hei et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2025; Zhang et al., 2024). In-row or alternate row intercropping of maize with common bean
(Phaseolus vulgaris L.), soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.), groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.), and cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.) is widely practiced in SSA (Mudare et al., 2022; Vanlauwe et al., 2019). While the effects of maize-soybean intercropping are well known in SSA (Berdjour et al., 2020; Kamara et al., 2019; Kermah et al., 2017; Kolawole, 2012; Tchegueni et al., 2022; Vanlauwe et al., 2019), information on its residual effect on cotton within a NT system is still scarce.

The objective of this study was to assess the impact of CA practices (e.g. NT and MS intercropping) on the yield and profitability of maize and cotton within the first two years of a crop rotation system. We hypothesised that (i) the two-year cumulative effects of NT improve crop yields and profitability compared to conventional tillage (CT); and (ii) intercropping maize with soybean limits the initial cotton yield penalties that are associated with the transition toward NT.

# Methodology

## Study site

This study was carried out at Angaradébou (11°70' N latitude and 2°56' E longitude) in the commune of Kandi, located in the cotton-growing zone of Northern Benin. This region has a dry tropical climate with a single growing season per year, from May to September (Atakoun et al., 2023). The average annual rainfall ranges from 900 to 1300 mm (Peel et al., 2007). The soil in the region is classified as a ferruginous tropical type in the French soil classification system, which corresponds to Acrisols or Lixisols according to the World Reference Base (Baxter, 2007). The soil at the site is clay in texture, with an acidic pH of 5.6, a very low nitrogen content of 0.04%, a very low soil organic carbon content of 0.54%, and a slightly low assimilable phosphorus content of 18.80 ppm (Amonmide et al., 2021). The soil at the end of the season is hydromorphic, making it very difficult to work.

During the 2022 experiment period, there were 61 rain events, resulting in a cumulative rainfall of 1087 mm. In comparison, the 2023 experiment period had 49 rain events and a cumulative rainfall of 1122 mm (Supplementary Material Fig. S1). The 2022 rainfall events were well distributed, with some exceeding 70 mm. However, the distribution of rain events in 2023 appeared uneven, with some days having over 250 mm of rainfall and others having less than 5 mm.

## Experimental design

The trial was a factorial design with two factors (tillage systems and cropping systems), each with two modalities and three replications for cotton and maize. The four treatments are described as follows:

For maize

- Factor 1 – soil management

* Conventional tillage (CT): flat ploughing to a depth of 20 cm with a tiller equipped with a share plough, followed by harrowing. The soil surface was not covered.

* No-tillage (NT): NT and no soil surface cover. The planting was done with a pointed stick.

- Factor 2 – cropping systems

* Sole maize

* Maize intercropped with soybean
For cotton

- Factor 1 - soil management

* Conventional tillage (CT): flat ploughing to a depth of 20 cm with a tiller equipped with a share plough, followed by harrowing. The soil surface was not covered.

* No-tillage (NT): NT and no soil surface cover. The planting was done with a pointed stick.

- Factor 2 – previous crop

* Cotton preceded by sole maize

* Cotton preceded by MS

Table S1 shows the characteristics of the treatments compared regarding crop sequence, soil, and residue management. The experiment was conducted in 2022 and repeated in 2023 using the same plots. Each year, both terms of the rotation, maize and cotton, were tested. The plots that were sown with maize in 2022 were used for cotton in 2023, and vice versa. In 2022, both factors (i.e. soil tillage and cropping systems) were tested on maize, while only the effect of soil management was tested on cotton. In 2023, the plots previously sown with cotton were split to correspond to the plot of maize (M, MS). Each elementary plot had an area of 175 m² (25 m × 7 m) and was separated from adjacent plots by 5-metre-wide grass strips. The experimental plots were uniform regarding soil type, topography, and cropping history. A biannual sequence of cotton and maize + cover crops (*Crotalaria retusa*) was practiced on these plots until 2021. At the beginning of the 2021 season, the plough hardpan was broken by a 30 cm sub-soiler pass after clearing.

Crop management

Prior to cotton sowing, plots were treated with glyphosate (480 g l⁻¹) to control weeds. Cotton (variety ANG 956, 180 maturity days) was sown 06th 2022 and 12th June 2023. Seeding was conducted at an early stage (eight days before the commencement of the CT plots) on the NT plots following significant precipitation. Seeding was performed manually at a 0.80 m × 0.30 m, with three or four seeds per hole at 5 cm depth and further thinned to one plant hill one month after sowing, resulting in a density of 41,666 plants ha⁻¹. Weed control and phytosanitary protection were conducted following the technical recommendations for cotton production in Benin. In both years, the cotton was fertilised with 250 kg ha⁻¹ of N₁₄P₁₈K₁₈S₆B₁ + 50 kg ha⁻¹ of urea (46%N), corresponding to 58 kg ha⁻¹ N, 20 kg ha⁻¹ P, 38.75 kg ha⁻¹ K, and 3 kg ha⁻¹ S.

Maize (variety 2000 SYNEE, 90 maturity days) was also sown on 06th June 2022, and 12th June 2023. For the sole maize treatment, planting was performed at 0.80 m x 0.40 m with three to four seeds per hole following the farmer's practice. Following emergence, the plants were thinned to two per hole, resulting in a density of 62,500 plants ha⁻¹ for the maize-only treatments. For the MS intercropping treatment, a narrow-wide row intercrop configuration was adopted, with soybean planted at the standard row distance, with two rows of maize and four rows of soybean. Soybean cultivar TGX 1830-20E was planted on the same date as maize each year. The within-row spacing was 0.40 m for maize and 0.20 m for soybean, while the inter-row space was 0.80 m for maize and 0.40 m for soybean.

In both years, the recommended types and doses of fertilisers for maize in the study area were followed. A total of 200 kg ha⁻¹ N₁₃P₁₇K₁₇S₅B₀.₅Zn₁.₅ + 50 kg ha⁻¹ of urea (46%N) (equivalent to 49 kg ha⁻¹ N, 16 kg ha⁻¹ P, 29.3 kg ha⁻¹ K, and 2 kg ha⁻¹ S) were applied to the maize in both years. The weed control and phytosanitary protection measures were implemented by the technical recommendations for maize production in Benin.
## Data collection

### Yield and yield components

Cotton biomass (both above- and below-ground) was collected post-harvest within three 1 m² harvest areas per plot, oven-dried at 65°C until constant dry weight, and reported to kg ha⁻¹. The number of bolls per plant (NB/P) was determined on 20 randomly chosen plants from central lines of each plot. Cotton was harvested twice – first when 70% of the bolls opened and again for the remaining bolls – with open bolls collected from a 48 m² (20 m × 2.4 m) harvest area to estimate yield (kg ha⁻¹). The average boll weight (BW) was calculated by dividing the total weight (including both seed cotton and lint) by the number of bolls.

Maize grain yield, above- and below-ground biomass, and the thousand grain weight (TGW) were measured at harvest (90 JAS). The harvest area was 48 m² on sole maize and 56 m² on MS intercropping (4 rows of maize and 4 rows of soybean). Above-ground biomass was cut at approximately 2 cm from the soil surface. Maize cobs were sun-dried and shelled, and grain weight was determined at a standardized moisture content (12.5%) before reporting to a per-hectare basis. Above-ground biomass was weighed at harvest, then sun-dried for 10 days until weight stabilisation, while belowground biomass was sun-dried first and then oven-dried at 65°C for 72 hours prior to weighing. TGW was determined after shelling the harvested cobs.

### Rainfall use efficiency

Rainwater use efficiency (RUEg) (kg ha⁻¹ mm⁻¹) was determined for cotton and maize as the quotient of total yield over between the yield (cotton or maize) per millimetre of rain fallen within the cotton and maize cycles each year using Eq. (1) (Peng et al., 2020).

$$RUEg = \frac{Y}{R} \qquad (1)$$

where Y is the seed-cotton yield (kg ha⁻¹) or maize grain yield (kg ha⁻¹), and R is the seasonal rainfall (in mm).

## Economic analysis

The input costs for both crops are summarised in Table S2. The economic indicators were determined following the methodology proposed by Penot et al. (2021). Operational costs are the expenses incurred during production, processing, and marketing. This study includes all costs related to seeds, fertilisers, phytosanitary products (herbicides, insecticides), and operational costs from planting to harvest (Table S2). The prices of fertilisers, insecticides, seed cotton, and herbicides were based on the rates provided by the Société pour le Développement du Coton (SODECO). The temporary salary costs were based on the rates used in farmers’ fields. We calculated the gross income (US$ ha⁻¹) by multiplying the crop yield (kg ha⁻¹) by the national selling price (US$ kg⁻¹). The average Beninese government price for the last five seasons was used for cotton (300 FCFA kg⁻¹). We used the average market selling price in the previous five years (200 FCFA kg⁻¹) for maize and soybean to account for periods of abundance and scarcity. In the MS systems, the gross margin was estimated based on the cumulative yield (maize + soybean). The gross margin was determined as the difference between the gross income and the operational costs (Penot et al., 2021). For all of the costs, we considered US$1 = 610 FCFA.

A sensitivity analysis was conducted to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of the treatments on the gross margin. Five scenarios were considered (Table S3). Other economic indicators, such as labour productivity, the benefit-cost ratio, and the return to labour, were determined. The labour productivity is measured as kg of maize grains or seed-cotton per day of labour following equation (2) (Hunt, 2000).
$$ \text{Labour productivity} \left( \frac{\text{kg}}{\text{person - day}} \right) = \text{Yield (kg/ha)/Working time (person - day/ha)} \quad (2) $$

The benefit-cost ratio was determined by dividing the gross margin by the operational cost, as shown in equation (3).

$$ \text{Benefit - cost ratio} = \text{Gross margin/Operational cost} \quad (3) $$

The return to labour was determined as the ratio of the gross margin by the working time as in equation (4).

$$ \text{Return to labour} \left( \frac{\text{US$}}{\text{person - day}} \right) = \text{Gross margin (US$/ha)/working time (person - day/ha)} \quad (4) $$

## Statistical analysis

The data were first checked for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test (Shapiro and Wilk, 1965) and for homogeneity of error variances using the Bartlett test (Bartlett, 1937). Linear mixed-effects models were performed using R 4.3.2 software. For maize-soybean, the effects of tillage options and cropping systems on yield (maize and maize + soybean), yield components, above- and below-ground biomass, and profitability were analysed for 2022 and 2023, with ‘block’ treated as a random factor in both years. For cotton, only the effect of tillage options was examined in 2022, whereas in 2023, both tillage options and the previous cropping systems were tested for their impact on yield, yield components, above- and below-ground biomass, and profitability. In both years, ‘block’ was included as a random factor.

The R package lmerTest was used to test the models (Kuznetsova et al., 2017). The variables ‘number of bolls per plant’, ‘thousand-grain weight’, and ‘number of grains per cob’ were Box-Cox transformed because they did not fit a normal distribution according to the Shapiro-Wilk test. Using the mixed model established in the package lmerTest, adjusted means were computed with the ‘emmeans’ function of the emmeans R package based on default parameters (Lenth, 2019). The interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to determine the variability between the levels of the random factors. The variability between the levels of the random factors was overall low (ICC≤ 30%), indicating that the experimental sites were well-homogenised.

When the fixed effects were significant (*p-value* < 0.05), the multcompView R package with default parameters was used for computing the multiple comparisons of the levels of the fixed factor with the Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) method (Graves et al., 2024). However, due to interactions between tillage and cropping systems on maize, the main effects were not reported for both years. For cotton, the main impact of tillage was reported in 2022, and the effect of tillage x previous cropping systems interaction was reported in 2023. A T-Student test was performed on the agronomic variables to compare the examined years.

## Results

### Agronomic performance

#### Maize and soybean

Maize grain yield, aboveground biomass, and rainfall use efficiency were significantly (*p* < 0.005) affected by tillage and intercropping in both years, although with varying trends (Table 1). In 2022, NT+MS intercropping (NT+MS) produced the highest grain and aboveground biomass yields and rain use efficiency (4487 kg ha⁻¹, 12683 kg ha⁻¹, and 4.12 kg mm⁻¹, respectively) (Table 1). Conventional and NT+MS intercropping (i.e. NT+MS and CT+MS) increased the
<table><caption>Table 1. Maize yield components and rainfall use efficiency as affected by tillage options and cropping systems in 2022 and 2023. (mean ± standard deviation)</caption><thead><tr><th>Year</th><th>Tillage</th><th>Cropping systems</th><th>Grain yield</th><th>Aboveground biomass</th><th>Below- ground biomass</th><th>Thousand Grains Weight</th><th>Number of Grains per cob</th><th>Rainfall Use Efficiency</th></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>kg ha<sup>-1</sup></td><td>g</td><td>#/cob</td><td>kg mm<sup>-1</sup></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">2022</td><td rowspan="2">Conventional tillage</td><td>Sole maize</td><td>3460 ± 419ab</td><td>4905 ± 897c</td><td></td><td>287 ± 42</td><td>344 ± 37</td><td>3.2 ± 0.4ab</td></tr><tr><td>Maize-soybean intercrops</td><td>3622 ± 410ab</td><td>12611 ± 819a</td><td></td><td>295 ± 25</td><td>392 ± 93</td><td>3.3 ± 0.4ab</td></tr><tr><td>No-tillage</td><td>Sole maize</td><td>3165 ± 1115b</td><td>6511 ± 353b</td><td></td><td>290 ± 35</td><td>393 ± 77</td><td>2.9 ± 1.0b</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Maize-soybean intercrops</td><td>4487 ± 900a</td><td>12683 ± 905a</td><td></td><td>309 ± 42</td><td>392 ± 47</td><td>4.1 ± 0.8a</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Mean p-values</td><td rowspan="3">Conventional tillage</td><td>Tillage</td><td>3683 ± 373A</td><td>9178 ± 1140A</td><td></td><td>295 ± 14A</td><td>377 ± 70A</td><td>3.4 ± 0.3A</td></tr><tr><td>Cropping system</td><td>0.6415</td><td>0.3148</td><td></td><td>0.0445</td><td>0.4549</td><td>0.6417</td></tr><tr><td>Tillage*Cropping system</td><td>0.1401</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td></td><td>0.1653</td><td>0.4832</td><td>0.1407</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>No-tillage</td><td>2677 ± 234b</td><td>4105 ± 913</td><td>1283 ± 417</td><td>262 ± 14</td><td>285 ± 38c</td><td>2.4 ± 0.3ab</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>Maize-soybean intercrops</td><td>2417 ± 273b</td><td>3744 ± 854</td><td>1346 ± 409</td><td>262 ± 17</td><td>320 ± 44b</td><td>2.6 ± 0.4ab</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Mean p-values</td><td rowspan="3">Conventional tillage</td><td>Tillage</td><td>2565 ± 500B</td><td>3968 ± 581B</td><td>1353 ± 393</td><td>252 ± 19B</td><td>331 ± 41B</td><td>2.3 ± 0.9B</td></tr><tr><td>Cropping system</td><td>0.7485ns</td><td>0.806</td><td>0.3178</td><td>0.1575</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>0.7461</td></tr><tr><td>Tillage*Cropping system</td><td>0.0002</td><td>0.6182</td><td>0.2189</td><td>0.5732</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>0.0003</td></tr></tbody></table>

In a given year and for a given parameter, values with the same lower-case letter are not significantly different at *p* < 0.05. *p-values* = probability of significance. *ns* = non-significant.
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Relative yields (kg ha⁻¹) of other treatments compared to the conventional system (CT). (A) Cotton under no-tillage (NT) in 2022; (B) Cotton after conventional maize-soybean intercrops (CT+MS) in 2023; (C) Cotton after no-tillage sole maize (NT+M) in 2023; (D) Cotton after no-tillage maize-soybean intercrops (NT+MS) in 2023; (E) Maize under conventional maize-soybean intercrops (CT+MS); (F) Maize under no-tillage sole maize (NT+M); and (G) Maize under no-tillage maize-soybean intercrops (NT+MS). Dashed lines represent the 1 :2; 1 :1 and 2 :1 lines.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** Cumulative maize soybean yield (mean ± standard deviation) in 2022 (A) and 2023 (B). For each crop, means with the same letter are not significantly different at *p* < 0.05.</figcaption></figure>

maize grain yield relative to conventional sole maize (CT+M) (cf. dots on or above the 1:1 line in Fig. 1E and G). In 2023, CT+M produced the highest grain yield (3195 kg ha⁻¹) and rain use efficiency (2.84 kg mm⁻¹) while conventional CT+MS produced the lowest yields (1977 kg ha⁻¹), and the largest number of grains per cob (Table 1). In contrast to 2022, CT+MS, NT+M, and NT+MS exhibited maize yield penalties with respect to CT+M in 2023 (cf. dots below the 1:1 line in Fig. 1E, F, and G). The rainfall use efficiency reflects the grain yield differences described above. Treatments NT+MS and CT+MS showed the highest rainfall use efficiency, respectively, in 2022 (4.12 kg mm⁻¹) and 2023 (2.84 kg mm⁻¹) (Table 1). Moreover, the cumulative maize and soybean yield was greater with NT+MS in 2022 and 2023 (6362 kg ha⁻¹ and 3593 kg ha⁻¹, respectively) (Fig. 2).

Although total rainfall during the season was slightly higher in 2023, cumulative rainfall during the first two months after sowing was almost half than in 2022 (Supplementary Material Fig. S1). Based on the T-student test used to compare both study years, maize yield (3683 kg ha⁻¹), aboveground biomass (9178 kg ha⁻¹), the TGW (295 g), the number of grains per cob (377.05 grains/cob), and rain use efficiency (3.38 kg mm⁻¹) were significantly higher in 2022.

## Cotton

Type of tillage and the preceding cropping system type (M or MS intercropping) and their interactions significantly affected seed-cotton yield, belowground biomass, boll number, and rain use efficiency, and had no significant effect on aboveground biomass and seed-cotton weight per boll (Table 2). The year had a significant effect on all variables. In 2022, NT produced significantly higher seed-cotton yield (1720 kg ha⁻¹), higher boll number (7.38 bolls/plant), and greater rain use efficiency (1.58 kg mm⁻¹) than CT (Table 2, Fig. 1A). The latter exhibited higher belowground biomass (832 kg ha⁻¹). In 2023, the interaction of tillage x cropping systems was significant (*p* < 0.05) for seed-cotton yield, aboveground biomass yield, and rain use efficiency. Cotton preceded by MS intercrops produced significantly higher yield and aboveground biomass than cotton preceded by sole maize, equally under CT and NT (Table 2). Compared to CT+M, intercropping MS before cotton, irrespective of tillage method (CT+MS and NT+MS), led to higher seed-cotton yields (Fig. 1B and D) and rainfall use efficiency (Table 2), whereas NT+M led to a yield penalty in subsequent cotton (cf. Fig. 1C). Cotton grown after NT+MS intercrops exhibited 5 to 29% greater aboveground biomass production than the rest of the treatments. The T-test indicated significantly
<table><caption>**Table 2.** Seed-cotton yield and yield components, above- and below-ground biomass, and rainfall use efficiency (mean ± standard deviation)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Year</th><th rowspan="2">Tillage</th><th rowspan="2">Cropping systems</th><th>Seed-cotton<br>yield</th><th>Aboveground<br>biomass</th><th>Belowground<br>biomass</th><th>Boll<br>number</th><th>Seed-cotton mass per<br>boll</th><th>Rainfall Use<br>Efficiency</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>kg ha<sup>-1</sup></th><th></th><th>#/plant</th><th>g/boll</th><th>kg mm<sup>-1</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="4">2022</td><td>Conventional<br>tillage</td><td></td><td>1411 ± 84b</td><td>6686 ± 269</td><td>832 ± 58a</td><td>6.3 ± 0.2b</td><td>4.4 ± 0.1</td><td>1.3 ± 0.1b</td></tr><tr><td>No-tillage</td><td></td><td>1720 ± 92a</td><td>6869 ± 406</td><td>678 ± 50b</td><td>7.4 ± 0.4a</td><td>4.2 ± 0.1</td><td>1.6 ± 0.1a</td></tr><tr><td>Mean</td><td></td><td>1565B</td><td>6778A</td><td>755B</td><td>6.8B</td><td>4.3A</td><td>1.4B</td></tr><tr><td>p-values</td><td></td><td>0.0043</td><td>0.7092</td><td>0.0101</td><td>0.0427</td><td>0.2260</td><td>0.0045</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">2023</td><td>Conventional<br>tillage</td><td>Preceded by sole maize</td><td>2134 ± 137b</td><td>5828 ± 595b</td><td>1591 ± 294</td><td>12.5 ± 0.8</td><td>3.4 ± 1.1</td><td>1.9 ± 0.4b</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Preceded by maize-soybean<br>intercrops</td><td>2522 ± 171a</td><td>6306 ± 239ab</td><td>1835 ± 277</td><td>13.1 ± 0.2</td><td>3.0 ± 1.3</td><td>2.3 ± 0.15a</td></tr><tr><td>No-tillage</td><td>Preceded by sole maize</td><td>1900 ± 156b</td><td>5111 ± 372c</td><td>1472 ± 360</td><td>11.7 ± 0.9</td><td>3.3 ± 0.6</td><td>1.7 ± 0.4b</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Preceded by maize-soybean<br>intercrops</td><td>2430 ± 128a</td><td>6611 ± 468a</td><td>1634 ± 252</td><td>13.2 ± 0.4</td><td>3.1 ± 0.7</td><td>2.2 ± 0.1a</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Mean<br>p-values</td><td></td><td></td><td>2247A</td><td>5748B</td><td>1633A</td><td>12.4A</td><td>3.2B</td><td>2.0A</td></tr><tr><td>Tillage</td><td></td><td>0.1999</td><td>0.2875</td><td>0.0923</td><td>0.5514</td><td>0.9070</td><td>0.1812</td></tr><tr><td>Cropping system</td><td></td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>0.0351</td><td>0.0905</td><td>0.4398</td><td>0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Tillage*Cropping system</td><td></td><td>0.0163</td><td>0.0115</td><td>0.6575</td><td>0.4635</td><td>0.7555</td><td>0.0174</td></tr></tbody></table>

In the given year and for a given parameter, values with the same lower-case letter are not significantly different at *p* < 0.05. *p*-values = probability of significance. *ns* = non-significant.
higher seed-cotton yield, belowground biomass, boll number, and rain use efficiency in 2023, and significantly higher aboveground biomass and seed-cotton mass per boll in 2022 (Table 2).

## Economic indicators

### Gross margin of maize plus soybean and cotton

Type of tillage, cropping system type, and/or their interaction significantly influenced ($p < 0.05$) the gross margin of maize plus soybean and cotton, both under current and alternative sensitivity analysis scenarios (Table 3).

In the MS systems, the gross margin was estimated based on the cumulative yield (maize + soybean). In 2022, the highest maize plus soybean gross margin was obtained with NT+MS under current price and yield conditions, as well as under scenarios 1, 2, 3, and 4 (Table 3). NT+MS significantly increased gross margin by an average of 582 US$ ha⁻¹ with respect to CT+M under all scenarios. In 2023, CT+M and NT+MS attained a significantly higher maize plus soybean gross margin under virtually all scenarios except scenario 1, in which it did not differ significantly from NT M (Table 3).

Cotton attained significantly higher gross margins under NT than tilled in 2022, and also across all sensitivity analysis scenarios, in the order of 90 to 314% increase as compared to CT (Table 3). In 2023, the effect of tillage and the preceding cropping systems was significant on the gross margin of cotton. Cotton preceded by MS intercrops (NT+MS and CT+MS) attained a higher gross margin than preceded by sole crops (NT+M and CT+M) across all scenarios.

### Labour productivity, return to labour, and benefit-cost ratio

When measured in terms of maize plus soybean production, labour was more productive with MS intercropping (CT+MS and NT+MS, respectively, 158 and 184 kg person day⁻¹) than with NT sole maize or with CT sole maize in 2022 (Table 4). In 2023, labour productivity was highest CT+M, CT+MS, and NT+MS (101, 99, and 104 kg person day⁻¹, respectively). When measured in terms of seed-cotton production, NT increased labour productivity in 2022, and was significantly higher when cotton was preceded by MS intercropping than sole maize in 2023, irrespective of tillage system (Table 4).

The return to labour of maize plus soybean production was highest with NT+MS and CT+MS (31 and 26 US$ person day⁻¹, respectively) and in 2022 and with CT+M, NT+MS, and CT+MS in 2023 (Table 4). In 2022, the return to labour of cotton production was higher under NT (18 US$ person day⁻¹) than CT (12 US$ person day⁻¹). In 2023, the return to labour was significantly higher when cotton was preceded by intercrops (14 US$ ha⁻¹) than by sole maize (Table 4).

The benefit-cost ratio of maize plus soybean was significantly greater under NT+MS than the rest of the treatments in 2022, whereas CT+MS had less favourable cost-benefit ratios in 2023 (Table 4). For cotton, NT led to a higher benefit-cost ratio for cotton as compared to CT in 2022 (Table 4). In 2023, cotton preceded by maize intercrops (CT+MS and NT+MS) exhibited significantly higher benefit-cost ratios (1.01 and 1.09, respectively) than by sole maize, irrespective of tillage system.

## Discussion

Yield penalties during the early phases of transition to CA often deter smallholder farmers from adopting these practices. This study aimed to assess the agronomic and economic impacts of implementing CA practices in the first two years of a cotton-maize crop rotation system in Benin's cotton-growing zone. During these first two years, the treatments that combined two key components of CA, namely NT and legume intercropping, limited the yield penalties for maize and for cotton grown in rotation the following year. NT and legume intercropping allowed
<table><caption>**Table 3.** Gross margin of maize plus soybean and cotton production under the effect of tillage options and cropping systems</caption><thead><tr><th>Crop</th><th>Year</th><th>Tillage</th><th>Cropping system</th><th>Scenario 0</th><th>Scenario 1</th><th>Scenario 2</th><th>Scenario 3</th><th>Scenario 4</th></tr><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th colspan="5">US$ ha<sup>-1</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="12">Maize and soybean</td><td rowspan="12">2022</td><td rowspan="3">Conventional tillage</td><td>Sole maize</td><td>424c</td><td>275c</td><td>343c</td><td>343c</td><td>504c</td></tr><tr><td>Maize-soybean intercrops</td><td>824b</td><td>601b</td><td>669b</td><td>623b</td><td>878b</td></tr><tr><td>Sole maize</td><td>405c</td><td>255c</td><td>324c</td><td>332c</td><td>481c</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">No-tillage</td><td>Maize-soybean intercrops</td><td>1063a</td><td>840a</td><td>909a</td><td>843a</td><td>1136a</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>679A</td><td>493A</td><td>561A</td><td>535A</td><td>750A</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Mean p-values</td><td>Tillage</td><td>0.4329</td><td>0.3949</td><td>0.4329</td><td>0.4143</td><td>0.4404</td></tr><tr><td>Cropping system</td><td>0.0257</td><td>0.0311</td><td>0.0204</td><td>0.0326</td><td>0.0336</td></tr><tr><td>Tillage*Cropping system</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Conventional tillage</td><td>Sole maize</td><td>363ab</td><td>131b</td><td>283a</td><td>220a</td><td>506a</td></tr><tr><td>Maize-soybean intercrops</td><td>354ab</td><td>204a</td><td>200b</td><td>126b</td><td>435ab</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>293b</td><td>144b</td><td>213b</td><td>173ab</td><td>377b</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">No-tillage</td><td>Sole maize</td><td>427a</td><td>214a</td><td>273a</td><td>194a</td><td>504a</td></tr><tr><td>Maize-soybean intercrops</td><td>359B</td><td>173B</td><td>242B</td><td>178B</td><td>456B</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Mean p-values</td><td>Tillage</td><td>0.1472</td><td>0.1472</td><td>0.1472</td><td>0.05654</td><td>0.2563</td></tr><tr><td>Cropping system</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Tillage*Cropping system</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="12">Cotton</td><td rowspan="12">2022</td><td rowspan="3">Conventional tillage</td><td></td><td>100b</td><td>64b</td><td>147b</td><td>36b</td><td>110b</td></tr><tr><td>No-tillage</td><td></td><td>237a</td><td>197a</td><td>280a</td><td>149a</td><td>337a</td></tr><tr><td>Mean p-values</td><td></td><td>169B</td><td>131B</td><td>214B</td><td>93B</td><td>224B</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Conventional tillage</td><td></td><td>0.014</td><td>0.0015</td><td>0.0015</td><td>0.0018</td><td>0.002</td></tr><tr><td>Preceded by sole maize</td><td>367b</td><td>338b</td><td>407b</td><td>261b</td><td>484b</td></tr><tr><td>Preceded by maize-soybean intercrops</td><td>549a</td><td>510a</td><td>579a</td><td>412a</td><td>676a</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">No-tillage</td><td></td><td>329b</td><td>300b</td><td>363b</td><td>235b</td><td>434b</td></tr><tr><td>Preceded by sole maize</td><td>563a</td><td>535a</td><td>603a</td><td>442a</td><td>696a</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Mean p-values</td><td></td><td>452A</td><td>421A</td><td>488A</td><td>338A</td><td>573A</td></tr><tr><td>Tillage</td><td>0.7708</td><td>0.7769</td><td>0.765</td><td>0.9139</td><td>0.5535</td></tr><tr><td>Cropping system</td><td>0.0202</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.0199</td><td>0.0197</td><td>0.2021</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Tillage*Cropping system</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr></tbody></table>

For each crop in the given year and for a given parameter, values with the same lower-case letter are not significantly different at *p* < 0.05. *p-values* = probability of significance. *ns* = non-significant.
<table><caption>**Table 4.** Average labour productivity return to labour, and benefit-cost ratio for maize-soybean and cotton production under the effects of tillage and cropping systems</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Crop</th><th rowspan="2">Year</th><th rowspan="2">Tillage</th><th rowspan="2">Cropping systems</th><th>Labour productivity</th><th>Return to labour</th><th rowspan="2">Benefit-cost ratio</th></tr><tr><th>kg day<sup>-1</sup></th><th>US$ day<sup>-1</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="12">Maize and soybean</td><td rowspan="12">2022</td><td rowspan="4">Conventional tillage</td><td>Sole maize</td><td>123b</td><td>13b</td><td>1.14c</td></tr><tr><td>Maize-soybean intercrops</td><td>158a</td><td>26a</td><td>1.88b</td></tr><tr><td>Sole maize</td><td>90b</td><td>12b</td><td>1.26c</td></tr><tr><td>Maize-soybean intercrops</td><td>184a</td><td>31a</td><td>2.74a</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">No-tillage</td><td>Sole maize</td><td>139A</td><td>21A</td><td>2A</td></tr><tr><td>Maize-soybean intercrops</td><td>0.77</td><td>0.69</td><td>0.285</td></tr><tr><td>Tillage</td><td>0.023</td><td>0.027</td><td>0.018</td></tr><tr><td>Cropping system</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Mean p-values</td><td>Tillage</td><td>0.77</td><td>0.69</td><td>0.285</td></tr><tr><td>Cropping system</td><td>0.023</td><td>0.027</td><td>0.018</td></tr><tr><td>Tillage*Cropping system</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Sole maize</td><td>101a</td><td>12a</td><td>0.98a</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Conventional tillage</td><td>Sole maize</td><td>99a</td><td>8b</td><td>0.81b</td></tr><tr><td>Maize-soybean intercrops</td><td>85b</td><td>12a</td><td>0.94a</td></tr><tr><td>Sole maize</td><td>104a</td><td>11a</td><td>1.09a</td></tr><tr><td>Maize-soybean intercrops</td><td>97B</td><td>11B</td><td>1B</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="12">Cotton</td><td rowspan="12">2023</td><td rowspan="4">Conventional tillage</td><td>Tillage</td><td>0.0006</td><td>0.7037</td><td>0.03119</td></tr><tr><td>Cropping system</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Tillage*Cropping system</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>&lt;0.00232</td></tr><tr><td>Sole maize</td><td>40b</td><td>12b</td><td>0.17b</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">No-tillage</td><td>Sole maize</td><td>53a</td><td>18a</td><td>0.44a</td></tr><tr><td>Maize-soybean intercrops</td><td>47a</td><td>15A</td><td>0.31B</td></tr><tr><td>Sole maize</td><td>47a</td><td>15A</td><td>0.31B</td></tr><tr><td>Maize-soybean intercrops</td><td>0.0011</td><td>0.0016</td><td>0.0011</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Mean p-values</td><td>Sole maize</td><td>42b</td><td>9b</td><td>0.66b</td></tr><tr><td>Preceded by sole maize</td><td>42b</td><td>9b</td><td>0.66b</td></tr><tr><td>Preceded by maize-soybean intercrops</td><td>47a</td><td>14a</td><td>1.01a</td></tr><tr><td>Preceded by maize-soybean intercrops</td><td>39b</td><td>10b</td><td>0.63b</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">No-tillage</td><td>Preceded by sole maize</td><td>39b</td><td>10b</td><td>0.63b</td></tr><tr><td>Preceded by maize-soybean intercrops</td><td>46a</td><td>14a</td><td>1.09a</td></tr><tr><td>Preceded by maize-soybean intercrops</td><td>43A</td><td>12A</td><td>0.86A</td></tr><tr><td>Tillage</td><td>0.2598</td><td>0.2525</td><td>0.074</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Mean p-values</td><td>Tillage</td><td>0.2598</td><td>0.2525</td><td>0.074</td></tr><tr><td>Cropping system</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Tillage*Cropping system</td><td>0.0016</td><td>0.0294</td><td>0.0292</td></tr></tbody></table>

For each crop in the given year and for a given parameter, values with the same lower-case letter are not significantly different at *p* < 0.05. *p*-values = probability of significance. ns = non-significant.

reducing economic risk variability, producing higher gross margins, cost-benefit ratios, and returns to labour, even under scenarios in which fertiliser costs were 30% higher or the crop yield decreased by one standard deviation (i.e. scenarios 1–4). However, the impact of NT and intercropping varied between the two years of the experiment, suggesting interactions between climatic variability and the performance of these CA practices.

## Impact of tillage options and cropping systems on crop productivity

The maize and cotton yields attained in this experiment in both years were above the average yields attained by farmers in cotton-growing regions of Northern Benin (respectively, 1400 and 1000–1100 kg ha⁻¹) (Honfoga, 2018; Tovihoudji et al., 2023). While NT+MS intercropping exhibited superior performance in terms of maize grain yield in 2022, conventional sole maize (CT+M) showed higher maize grain yields in 2023 (cf. Table 1). Adding up the maize yields of both years (CT+M = 6655 kg ha⁻¹, CT+MS = 5599 kg ha⁻¹, NT+M = 5842 kg ha⁻¹, NT+MS = 6904 kg ha⁻¹) results in virtually similar cumulative yield levels under CT+M and NT+MS. In addition to maize, soybean grain yield was higher under intercropping treatments (NT+MS and CT+MS) in both years (cf. Fig. 2). The highest seed-cotton yields were attained
with NT in 2022, and when the cotton was preceded by intercrops in 2023 (cf. Table 2). These
results are in line with recent studies in SSA (Bitew et al., 2022; Nasar et al., 2024). The substantial
increase in maize performance (grain yields and total biomass) with NT and legume intercropping
during the first year could be attributed to the effect of minimum soil disturbance on the efficient
utilisation of available resources (light, water, and plant nutrients), plus the nitrogen-fixing ability
of the soybean. Recent evidence from northern Benin cotton zones also indicates greater soil
biological activity and trophic networks favouring nutrient cycling and availability under CA than
CT (Dassou et al., 2024). Whether the impact of CA practices studied is due to water or nutrient
effects remains to be elucidated through further research.

Legumes play a crucial role in enhancing the sustainable intensification of farming systems, with their contributions to the soil nitrogen (N) pool varying depending on their growth habits and nitrogen-fixing abilities. For instance, short-cycle bush beans provide modest contributions, while dual-purpose soybean and pigeon pea can significantly impact the N pool in soil (Vanlauwe et al., 2019). Soybean is particularly beneficial in low-input farming systems, such as those prevalent in Northern Benin, as it contributes to the soil N budget through biological N₂ fixation (BNF) (Ciampitti and Salvagiotti, 2018). BNF can benefit the associated crop and subsequent crops. Although the BNF potential of soybean was not directly assessed in this study, it is reasonable to assume that the cotton planted in 2023 benefited from the residual nitrogen fixed by soybean in 2022. This could explain the higher seed-cotton yield recorded in 2023 when cotton was preceded by MS intercropping, irrespective of the tillage option (CT or NT). Several studies (e.g. Zhao et al., 2022; Corbeels et al., 2020) have shown that well-designed maize-legume intercrops in both time and space are highly productive and efficient in resource utilisation under sub-humid conditions, resulting in maintenance or improvement of the yield of the main crop.

It has been broadly reported that shifting from CT to CA is characterised by yield penalties in the first years of adoption (Akplo et al., 2025; Bruelle et al., 2015; Thierfelder et al., 2016; Yemadje et al., 2025), so that positive yield effects can take 5 to 15 years to become apparent (Salem et al., 2015; Corbeels et al., 2014). In a recent study, Akplo et al. (2025) showed that during the first two years of a transition towards CA, be it towards minimum or NT, yield penalties persist, affecting the economic performance of both cotton and maize in Northern Benin. Through a literature review, Corbeels et al. (2020) reported that when the three CA principles of minimal soil disturbance, continuous soil cover, and crop diversification are implemented concomitantly, maize yield increased by an average of 8.4% in SSA. Here, we recorded maize yield increases in the order of 30% (1 t ha⁻¹ extra grain) by combining NT and soybean intercropping with respect to CT+M the first year, as well as a carry-over 14% increase in seed-cotton yield the subsequent year. Intercropping with CT led to a merely 5% maize yield advantage, yet the subsequent cotton yielded 18% more than when preceded by sole maize. NT without legume intercropping led to a 13% yield penalty compared with CT in the first year, as well as a 10% yield penalty in the subsequent cotton crop. It must be noticed also that the CA principle of soil cover with mulch was not met in this experiment, as free-grazing animals foraged on the maize crop residues during the dry season.

Furthermore, we observed significant variation in maize aboveground biomass and number of
grains per cob (cf. Table 1) and in cotton above- and below-ground biomass, and boll number
(cf. Table 2), suggesting that soil management can have subtle yet significant effects on crop yield
components, as seen earlier in Benin (Akplo et al., 2025; Yemadje et al., 2022) and elsewhere
(Li et al., 2020; X. Zhao et al., 2022). Aboveground biomass plays a key role in the accumulation
and redistribution of assimilates required for grain or seed formation, but it is influenced by
various factors, including genetics, environmental conditions, and management practices
(Jumanov et al., 2023). Root development and its pattern of distribution are largely determined by
several factors, including the soil environment (Mehra et al., 2025). Our results showed greater
cotton belowground biomass under CT than NT, probably indicating better conditions for root
establishment through facilitating water and air circulation and soil penetrability in tilled soils
(Kiboi et al., 2019; Kurothe et al., 2014; Yemadje et al., 2022), especially during the first years of a
transition to CA. A less developed root system may also contribute to explaining the differences in the performance of CA practices between the first and second years of this experiment. Although the total seasonal rainfall was similar in both years, in 2023, crops received during the first two months of the season about half of the rainfall received in the same period in 2022 (cf. Supplementary Material Fig. S1). Among the impacts that CA has on crop water availability, that of water retention with mulching is a key one (Abdallah et al., 2021; Bruelle et al., 2017; Mhlanga and Thierfelder, 2021), and this was not achieved in the current experiment.

The results demonstrated a notable disparity in rainfall use efficiency for cotton in 2022, with the highest value observed in the NT treatment relative to the CT control. In 2023, intercropping maize and soybean before cotton, irrespective of tillage method (CT+MS and NT+MS), led to rainfall use efficiency by cotton. However, the interactive effect of tillage practices and cropping systems was found to be significant on rainfall use efficiency for maize, with the NT+MS intercropping system exhibiting superior rainfall use efficiency. The positive impact of CA practices over conventional systems could be attributable to their high aboveground biomass production observed in this study. This aboveground biomass can act as mulch and lead to improved soil moisture conditions (Feng et al., 2023). NT limits soil disturbance, thereby reducing water loss and creating conditions favourable for water conservation on site and efficient water use by plants (Giller et al., 2015). In a recent review, Liu et al. (2025) reported that intercropping increases plant water availability and water use efficiency. Previous studies have demonstrated that intercropping practices increase water availability by enhancing both the above- and below-ground biomass, modifying canopy structure, and increasing the underlying surface complexity due to variation in crop cover over time (Barry et al., 2019; Luo et al., 2024).

## Economic implications of no-tillage and intercropping

The economic analysis provided evidence on the impacts of NT and intercropping on cropping system profitability and financial sustainability. Overall, the effect of the treatments on the gross margin reflected the differences in maize plus soybean yield and seed-cotton yield previously described, but these varied alongside the different scenarios examined. For all scenarios, NT and intercropping showed a greater gross margin for maize plus soybean production. Cotton preceded by intercrops, tilled or not, presented higher gross margins than preceded by sole maize, consistently across scenarios that assumed +/-30% fertiliser price variation and +/-1 standard deviation maize or cotton yield variation. The performance of NT and intercropping observed in this study can be explained by the fact that these treatments increased yields and required fewer financial inputs than conventional practices (cf. Table S2). Previous studies indicate that, although the short-term crop yield benefits expected from NT are relatively small, the immediate advantage of eliminating time- and cost-consuming ploughing is significant (Corbeels et al., 2020; Hobbs et al., 2008).

Intercropping legumes (e.g. soybean) with cereals (e.g. maize) has the potential to increase farmer profitability by optimising land use and labour (Tine et al., 2023), while also reducing fertiliser and pesticide application and enhancing crop yields and yield stability (Tzemi et al., 2025). A recent study (Erythrina et al., 2022) reported an additional net return gain of USD 153 ha⁻¹ in MS intercropping compared to maize sole. The economic advantages of cereal/legume intercrops were reported for cereal/legume including groundnut/pearl millet (Rao and Singh, 1990), maize-common bean (Alemayehu and Bewket, 2016), or maize-pea (Yang et al., 2018). However, in our experiment, maize-legume intercropping under CT was more sensitive to price and yield changes. This may be associated with the high cost of ploughing, which is in addition to the other production costs common to all other treatments (cf. Table S2). Omulo et al. (2022) reported lower gross margin under disc harrowing (CT) compared to ripping tillage and NT in Zimbabwe.
Under all scenarios, NT exhibited a higher cotton gross margin than that CT in 2022. The carry-over effect of maize-legume intercropping on subsequent cotton yield was also reflected in higher cotton gross margins in 2023, under all scenarios. Likewise, Jat *et al.* (2014) reported lower production costs, higher net returns and benefit-cost ratio, and lower labour and energy requirements for NT compared to the CT. Other studies (Aryal *et al.*, 2016; Kumar *et al.*, 2013) showed that shifting from CT to NT in wheat decreased input costs by 20–59% and increased net revenues by 28–33%. By decreasing production costs, even if yields remain similar, slightly above or below CT, NT may contribute to reducing economic risks in a context of increasingly frequent crop failures due to climate variability.

**Conclusion**

The primary objective of this research was to examine the short-term agronomic and economic performance of CA practices, namely NT and MS intercropping, on a cotton-based cropping system in Northern Benin. In this study, NT with intercropping soybean and maize compensated for the yield penalties associated with the initial years of the transition to CA, allowed reducing economic risks, and resulted in higher gross margins, even when the fertiliser costs or the yield varied, during both the cereal crop and the subsequent cotton crop. However, the opposite yield trends among treatments observed in the second year, associated with a drier start of the season, would indicate that water capture and availability were not improved under CA due to the lack of mulching or crop residue incorporation in the soil. In such conditions, particularly during the early transition years, the expected CA impacts on soil structure may still be limited, and CT may continue to create better conditions for root growth and water dynamics than NT, as shown by cotton belowground biomass trends.

Our study focuses on the comparison of different tillage options and cropping systems without considering other potential factors that could influence agricultural productivity, such as soil type, climate variability, crop varieties, and planting dates, which could have an impact on productivity. To inform farmers’ management decisions effectively, it is essential to assess such options from agronomic and economic perspectives using multilocation experimentation over a longer time span.

**Supplementary material.** The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479725100136

**Data availability statement.** Data will be made available on request.

**Acknowledgements.** We are indebted to grateful to Bettina Sanni for their help during the fieldwork.

**Author contributions.** P.L.Y.: conceptualisation, original draft – review and editing. T.M.A.: writing – original draft. L.I.: writing – original curation, conceptualisation. E.S.: writing – original draft, project administration, funding acquisition. P.T.: writing – review and editing, conceptualisation, supervision.

**Funding statement.** This research was funded by the Benin Cotton Research Institute (IRC), Cotton Interprofessional Association (AIC), and the TAZCO2 project (Transition Agroécologique des Zones Cotonnières du Bénin), which is funded by the Republic of Benin and the French Development Agency (AFD).

**Competing interests.** The authors declare they have no competing interest.

**References**

Abdallah, A.M., Jat, H.S., Choudhary, M., Abdelaty, E.F., Sharma, P.C. and Jat, M.L. (2021) Conservation agriculture effects on soil water holding capacity and water-saving varied with management practices and agroecological conditions: a review. *Agronomy* 11, 1–27
Akplo, T.M., Kouelo Alladassi, F., Zoundji, M.C.C., Fulajtar, E., Benmansour, M., Rabesiranana, N., Akinseye, F.M. and Houngnandan, P. (2024) Effect of no-tillage on soil redistribution estimated by beryllium-7, soil moisture, and carbon fractions loss in Central Benin. *Agrosystems, Geosciences and Environment* 7, 1–19.

Akplo, T.M., Yemadje, P.L., Imorou L., Sanni, B., Boulakia, S., Sekloka, E. and Tittonell, P. (2025) Minimum tillage reduces variability and economic risks in cotton-maize rotations in Northern Benin. *Field Crops Research* **324**, 109795.

Alemayehu, A. and Bewket, W. (2016) Local climate variability and crop production in the central highlands of Ethiopia. *Environmental Development* **19**, 36–48.

Amonmide, I., Guilbert, H., Takpa, O.S. and Fayalo, D.G. (2021) Note de synthèse des résultats récents d'analyses de sols en zone cotonnière du Bénin, Cotonou.

Aryal, J.P., Sapkota, T.B., Stirling, C.M., Jat, M.L., Jat, H.S., Rai, M., Mittal S. and Sutaliya J. M. (2016) Conservation agriculture-based wheat production better copes with extreme climate events than conventional tillage-based systems: a case of untimely excess rainfall in Haryana, India. *Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment* **233**, 325–335.

Atakoun, A.M., Tovihoudji, P.G., Diogo, R.V.C., Yemadje, P.L., Balarabe, O., Akponikpè, P.B.I., Sekloka E., Hougni, A. and Tittonell, P. (2023) Evaluation of cover crop contributions to conservation agriculture in northern Benin. *Field Crops Research* **303**, 109118.

Barry, K.E., Mommer, L., van Ruijven, J., Wirth C., Wright, J.A., Bai, Y., Connolly, J., De Deyn, G.B., de Kroon, H., Isbell, F., Milcu, A., Roscher, C., Scherer-Lorenzen, M., Schmid, B. and Weigelt, A. (2019) The future of complementarity: disentangling causes from consequences. *Trends in Ecology & Evolution* **34**, 167–180.

Bartlett, M.S. (1937) Properties of sufficiency and statistical tests. *Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A - Mathematical and Physical Sciences* **160**, 268–282.

Baxter, S. (2007) World Reference Base for Soil Resources. World Soil Resources Report 103. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2006), pp. 132, US$22.00 (paperback). ISBN 92-5-10511-4. *Experimental Agriculture* **43**, 264–264.

Berdjour, A., Dugje, I.Y., Dzomeku, I.K. and Rahman, N.A. (2020) Maize–soybean intercropping effect on yield productivity, weed control and diversity in northern Ghana. *Weed Biology and Management* **20**, 69–81.

Bitew, Y., Derebe, B., Worku, A. and Chakelie, G. (2022) Maize–legume systems under conservation agriculture. *Agronomy Journal* **114**, 173–186.

Bruelle, G., Affholder, F., Abrell, T., Ripoche, A., Dusserre J., Naudin K., Tittonell, P., Rabeharisoa, L. and Scopel, E. (2017) Can conservation agriculture improve crop water availability in an erratic tropical climate producing water stress? A simple model applied to upland rice in Madagascar. *Agricultural Water Management* **192**, 281–293.

Bruelle, G., Naudin, K., Scopel, E., Domas, R., Rabeharisoa, L. and Tittonell, P. (2015). Short-to mid-term impact of conservation agriculture on yield variability of upland rice: evidence from farmer's fields in Madagascar. *Experimental Agriculture* **51**, 66–84.

Ciampitti, I. A., and Salvagiotti, F. (2018) New insights into soybean biological nitrogen fixation. *Agronomy Journal* **110**(4), 1185–1196.

Corbeels, M., de Graaff, J., Ndah, T.H., Penot, E., Baudron, F., Naudin, K., Andrieu, N., Chirat, G., Schuler, J., Nyagumbo, I., Rusinamhodzi, L., Traore, K., Mzoba, H.D. and Adolwa, I.S. (2014) Understanding the impact and adoption of conservation agriculture in Africa: a multi-scale analysis. *Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment* **187**, 155–170.

Corbeels, M., Naudin, K., Whitbread, A.M., Kühne, R. and Letourmy, P. (2020) Limits of conservation agriculture to overcome low crop yields in sub-Saharan Africa. *Nature Food* **1**, 447–454.

Cuartero, J., Pascual, J.A., Vivo, J.M., Özbolat, O., Sánchez-Navarro, V., Weiss, J., Zornoza, R., Martínez-Mena, M., García, E. and Ros, M. (2022) Melon/cowpea intercropping pattern influenced the N and C soil cycling and the abundance of soil rare bacterial taxa. *Frontiers in Microbiology* **13**, 1–14.

Dossouhoui, G.I.A., Yemadje, P.L., Berre, D., Diogo, R.V.C. and Tittonell, P. (2025) Understanding farm-level diversity to guide soil fertility management in West African cotton systems: evidence from Benin. *Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment* **392**, 109749.

Dossouhoui, G.I.A., Yemadje, P.L., Diogo, R.V.C., Balarabe, O. and Tittonell, P. (2023) “Sedentarisation” of transhumant pastoralists results in privatization of resources and soil fertility decline in West Africa’s cotton belt. *Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems* **7**, 1–6.

Erythrina, E., Susilawati, S., Slameto, S., Resiani, N.M.D., Arianti, F.D., Jumakir, J., Fahri, A., Bhermana, A., Jannah, A. and Sembiring, H. (2022) Yield advantage and economic performance of rice–maize, rice–soybean, and maize–soybean intercropping in rainfed areas of Western Indonesia with a wet climate. *Agronomy* **12**, 2326.

FAO. (2019) Conservation agriculture principles. Retrieved from www.fao.org/conservation-agriculture/overview/principles-of-ca/en/

Feng, S., Ding, J., Zhan, T., Zhao, W. and Pereira, P. (2023) Plant biomass allocation is mediated by precipitation use efficiency in arid and semiarid ecosystems. *Land Degradation & Development* **34**, 221–233.

Friedrich, T., Derpsch, R. and Kassam, A. (2012) Overview of the global spread of conservation agriculture. *Field Actions Science Reports* **6**, 0–7.
Giller, K.E., Andersson, J.A., Corbeels, M., Kirkegaard, J., Mortensen, D., Erenstein, O. and Vanlauwe, B. (2015) Beyond conservation agriculture. *Frontiers in Plant Science* **6**, 1–14.

Grabowski, P.P., Haggblade, S., Kabwe, S. and Tembo, G. (2014) Minimum tillage adoption among commercial smallholder cotton farmers in Zambia, 2002 to 2011. *Agricultural Systems* **131**, 34–44.

Graves, S., Piepho, H.-P., Selzer, L. and Dorai-Raj, S. (2024) multcompView: visualizations of paired comparisons. *R package version* 0.1-9, 1-24.

Hei, Z., Xiang, H., Zhang, J., Liang, K, Zhong, J., Li M. and Lu, Y. (2021) Rice intercropping with water mimosa (*Neptunia oleracea* Lour.) can facilitate soil N utilization and alleviate apparent N loss. *Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment* **313**, 107378.

Hermann, M.B., Moumouni, I. and Tokore Orou Mere, S.B.J. (2016) Contribution à l'amélioration des pratiques paysannes de production durable de coton (Gossypium hirsutum) au Bénin : cas de la commune de Banikoara. *International Journal of Biological and Chemical Sciences* **9**, 2401.

Hobbs, P.R., Sayre, K. and Gupta, R. (2008) The role of conservation agriculture in sustainable agriculture. *Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences* **363**, 543–555.

Honfoga, B.G. (2018) Diagnosing soil degradation and fertilizer use relationship for sustainable cotton production in Benin. *Cogent Environmental Science* **4**, 1422366

Hunt, R.C. (2000) Labor productivity and agricultural development: Boserup revisited. *Human Ecology* **28**, 251–277.

Jat, R.K., Sapkota, T.B., Singh, R.G., Jat, M.L., Kumar, M. and Gupta, R.K. (2014) Seven years of conservation agriculture in a rice-wheat rotation of Eastern Gangetic Plains of South Asia: yield trends and economic profitability. *Field Crops Research* **164**, 199–210.

Jat, R.K., Singh, R.G., Kumar, M., Jat, M.L., Parihar, C.M., Bijarniya, D., Sutaliya, J.M., Jat, M.K., Parihar, M.D., Kakraliya, S.K. and Gupta, R.K. (2019) Ten years of conservation agriculture in a rice–maize rotation of Eastern Gangetic Plains of India: yield trends, water productivity and economic profitability. *Field Crops Research* **232**, 1–10.

Jumanov, D.T., Kuziboyev, J.B. and Izzatullayev, L.A. (2023) The impact of agrotechnical factors on the productivity of cotton in the context of optimization. *BIO Web of Conferences* **71**, 01078.

Kamara, A.Y., Tofa, A.I., Ademulegun, T., Solomon, R., Shehu, H., Kamai, N. and Omoigui, L. (2019) Maize-soybean intercropping for sustainable intensification of cereal-legume cropping systems in northern Nigeria. *Experimental Agriculture* **55**, 73–87.

Kermah, M., Franke, A.C., Adjei-Nsiah, S., Ahiabor, B.D.K., Abaidoo, R.C. and Giller, K.E. (2017) Maize-grain legume intercropping for enhanced resource use efficiency and crop productivity in the Guinea savanna of northern Ghana. *Field Crops Research* **213**, 38–50.

Kiboi, M.N., Ngetich, K.F., Fliessbach, A., Muriuki, A. and Mugendi, D.N. (2019) Soil fertility inputs and tillage influence on maize crop performance and soil water content in the Central Highlands of Kenya. *Agricultural Water Management* **217**, 316–331.

Kolawole, G.O. (2012) Effect of phosphorus fertilizer application on the performance of maize/soybean intercrop in the southern Guinea savanna of Nigeria. *Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science* **58**, 189–198.

Kumar, V., Saharawat, Y.S., Gathala, M.K., Jat, A.S., Singh, S.K., Chaudhary N. and Jat, M. L. (2013) Effect of different tillage and seeding methods on energy use efficiency and productivity of wheat in the Indo-Gangetic Plains. *Field Crops Research* **142**, 1–8.

Kurothe, R.S., Kumar, G., Singh, R., Singh, H.B., Tiwari, S.P., Vishwakarma, A.K., Sena, D.R. and Pande, V.C. (2014) Effect of tillage and cropping systems on runoff, soil loss and crop yields under semiarid rainfed agriculture in India. *Soil and Tillage Research* **140**, 126–134.

Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P.B., and Christensen, R.H.B. (2017) lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. *Journal of Statistical Software* **82**, 1–26.

Li, C., Hoffland, E., Kuyper, T.W., Yu, Y., Zhang, C., Li, H., Zhang F. and van der Werf, W. (2020) Syndromes of production in intercropping impact yield gains. *Nature Plants* **6**, 653–660.

Liu, H., Gao, X., Li, C., Cai, Y., Song, X. and Zhao, X. (2025) Intercropping increases plant water availability and water use efficiency: a synthesis. *Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment* **379**, 109360.

Luo, Z., Fan, J., Shao, M., Yang, Q., Yang, X. and Zhang, S. (2024) Evaluating soil water dynamics and vegetation growth characteristics under different soil depths in semiarid loess areas. *Geoderma* **442**, 116791.

Martinsen, V., Munera-Echeverri, J.L., Obia, A., Cornelissen, G. and Mulder, J. (2019) Significant build-up of soil organic carbon under climate-smart conservation farming in Sub-Saharan Acrisols. *Science of the Total Environment* **660**, 97–104.

Mehra, P., Banda, J., Ogorek, L.L.P., Fusi, R., Castrillo, G., Colombi, T., Pandey, B.K., Sturrock, C.J., Wells, D.M. and Bennett, M.J. (2025) Root growth and development in “real life”: advances and challenges in studying root-environment interactions. *Annual Review of Plant Biology* **76**, 467–492.

Mhlanga, B. and Thierfelder, C. (2021) Long-term conservation agriculture improves water properties and crop productivity in a Lixisol. *Geoderma* **398**, 115107.
Mudare, S., Kanomanyanga, J., Jiao, X., Mabasa, S., Lamichhane, J.R., Jing, J. and Cong, W.F. (2022) Yield and fertilizer benefits of maize/grain legume intercropping in China and Africa: a meta-analysis. *Agronomy for Sustainable Development* **42**, 81.

Nasar, J., Ahmad, M., Gitari, H., Tang, L., Chen, Y. and Zhou, X.B. (2024) Maize/soybean intercropping increases nutrient uptake, crop yield and modifies soil physio-chemical characteristics and enzymatic activities in the subtropical humid region based in Southwest China. *BMC Plant Biology* **24**, 1–18.

Obalum, S.E. and Obi, M.E. (2010) Physical properties of a sandy loam loiltisol as affected by tillage-mulch management practices and cropping systems. *Soil and Tillage Research* **108**, 30–36.

Omulo, G., Birner, R., Köller, K., Simunji, S. and Daum, T. (2022) Comparison of mechanized conservation agriculture and conventional tillage in Zambia: a short-term agronomic and economic analysis. *Soil and Tillage Research* **221**, 105414.

Peel, M.C., Finlayson, B.L. and McMahon, T.A. (2007) Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification. *Hydrology and Earth System Sciences* **11**, 1633–1644.

Peng, Z., Wang, L., Xie, J., Li, L., Coulter, J.A., Zhang, R., Luo, Z., Cai L., Carberry P. and Whitbread, A. (2020) Conservation tillage increases yield and precipitation use efficiency of wheat on the semi-arid Loess Plateau of China. *Agricultural Water Management* **231**, 106024.

Penot, E., Chambon, B. and Myint, T. (2021) Economic calculations for assessing agricultural systems cost benefit analysis and farm level real budget analysis. *Agricultural Research for Development* 1–25. https://agritrop.cirad.fr/

Rao, M.R. and Singh, M. (1990) Productivity and risk evaluation in contrasting intercropping systems. *Field Crops Research* **23**, 279–293.

Rapholo, E., Odhiambo, J.J.O., Nelson, W.C.D., Rötter, R.P., Ayisi, K., Koch M. and Hoffmann, M.P. (2020) Maize-lablab intercropping is promising in supporting the sustainable intensification of smallholder cropping systems under high climate risk in Southern Africa. *Experimental Agriculture* **56**, 104–117.

Salem, H.M., Valero, C., Muñoz, M.A., Rodríguez, M.G. and Silva, L.L. (2015) Short-term effects of four tillage practices on soil physical properties, soil water potential, and maize yield. *Geoderma* **237–238**, 60–70.

Sánchez-Navarro, V., Marcos-Pérez, M., Contreras, J. and Zornoza, R. (2024) Biological nitrogen fixation and intra- and interspecific competition in two vegetable/legume intercropping systems and their relationship to crop yield. *Scientia Horticulturae* **337**, 113502.

Shapiro, S.S. and Wilk, M.B. (1965) An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). *Biometrika* **52**, 591.

Smith, H.A. and McSorley, R. (2000) Intercropping and pest management: a review of major concepts. *American Entomologist* **46**, 154–161.

Sodjinou, E., Glin, L.C., Nicolay, G., Tovignan, S. and Hinvi, J. (2015) Socioeconomic determinants of organic cotton adoption in Benin, West Africa. *Agricultural and Food Economics* **3**, 1–22.

Soumaré, M., Havard, M. and Bachelier, B. (2020) Cotton in West and Central Africa: from the agricultural revolution to the agro-ecological transition. *Cahiers Agricultures* **29**, 37.

Sultan, B., Bella-Medjo, M., Berg, A., Quirion, P. and Janicot, S. (2010) Multi-scales and multi-sites analyses of the role of rainfall in cotton yields in West Africa. *International Journal of Climatology* **30**, 58–71.

Tchegueni, M., Tounou, A.K., Kolani, L., Tchao, M., Gnon, T., Agboka, K. and Sanda, K. (2022). Effect of maize-soybean and maize-cassava intercropping on the dynamics and damage of the fall armyworm *Spodoptera frugiperda* (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and the yield of maize grains in southern Togo. *International Journal of Biological and Chemical Sciences* **16**, 1399–1410.

Temesgen, M., Savenije, H.H.G., Rockström, J. and Hoogmoed, W.B. (2012) Assessment of strip tillage systems for maize production in semi-arid Ethiopia: Effects on grain yield, water balance and water productivity. *Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C* **47–48**, 156–165.

Thierfelder, C., Matemba-Mutasa, R., Bunderson, W.T., Mutenje, M., Nyagumbo, I. and Mupangwa, W. (2016) Evaluating manual conservation agriculture systems in southern Africa. *Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment* **222**, 112–124.

Thierfelder, C., Matemba-Mutasa, R. and Rusinamhodzi, L. (2015) Yield response of maize (Zea mays L.) to conservation agriculture cropping system in Southern Africa. *Soil and Tillage Research* **146**, 230–242.

Thierfelder, C., Mwila, M. and Rusinamhodzi, L. (2013) Conservation agriculture in eastern and southern provinces of Zambia: Long-term effects on soil quality and maize productivity. *Soil and Tillage Research* **126**, 246–258.

Tine, S., Faye, A., Obour, A.K., Diouf, D., Ndiaye, J.B.M., Lo, M., Akplo, T.M., Ndiaye, S. and Assefa, Y. (2023) Cowpea residue management effect on productivity of subsequent millet in a legume-cereal crop rotation. *Agrosystems, Geosciences and Environment* **6**, 1–13.

Tovihoudji, P.G., Akpo, F.I., Tassou Zakari, F., Ollabodé, N., Yegbemey, R.N. and Yabi, J.A. (2023) Diversity of soil fertility management options in maize-based farming systems in northern Benin: a quantitative survey. *Frontiers in Environmental Science* **11**, 1–12.

Tzemi, D., Peltonen-Sainio, P., Palosuo, T., Rämö, J. and Lehtonen, H. (2025) Profitability of intercropping legumes with cereals: a farm-level analysis. *Journal of Agriculture and Food Research* **21**, 101804.
Vanlauwe, B., Hungria, M., Kanampiu, F. and Giller, K.E. (2019) The role of legumes in the sustainable intensification of African smallholder agriculture: lessons learnt and challenges for the future. *Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment* **284**, 106583.

Wang, W., Li, M.Y., Wang, Y., Li, J.M., Zhang, W., Wen, Q.H., Huang, S.J., Chen, G.R., Zhu, S.G., Wang, J., Ullah, F. and Xiong, Y.C. (2025) Legume intercropping improves soil organic carbon stability in drylands: a 7-year experimental validation. *Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment* **381**, 109456.

Wang, Y., Zhang, J., He, C., Meng, P., Wang, J., Gao, J. and Xue, P. (2025) Effects of intercropping and mowing frequency on biological nitrogen fixation capacity, nutritive value, and yield in Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L. cv. Vernal). *Plants* **14**, 240.

Wolschick, N.H., Bertol, I., Barbosa, F.T., Bagio, B. and Biasiolo, L.A. (2021) Remaining effect of long-term soil tillage on plant biomass yield and water erosion in a Cambisol after transition to no-tillage. *Soil and Tillage Research* **213**, 105149.

Yang, C., Fan, Z. and Chai, Q. (2018) Agronomic and economic benefits of pea/maize intercropping systems in relation to N fertilizer and maize density. *Agronomy* **8**, 1–14.

Yang, H., Su, Y., Wang, L., Whalen, J.K., Pu, T., Wang, X., Yang, F., Yong, T., Liu, J., Yan, Y., Yang, W. and Wu, Y. (2025) Strip intercropped maize with more light interception during post-silking promotes photosynthesized carbon sequestration in the soil. *Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment* **378**, 109301.

Yemadje, P.L., Takpa, O., Amonmide, I., Balarabe, O., Sekloka, E., Guibert, H. and Tittonell, P. (2022) Limited yield penalties in an early transition to conservation agriculture in cotton-based cropping systems of Benin. *Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems* **6**, 1041399.

Yemadje, P.L., Tovihoudji, P.G., Koussihouede, H., Imorou, L., Balarabe, O., Boulakia, S., Sekloka, E. and Tittonell, P. (2025) Reducing initial cotton yield penalties in a transition to conservation agriculture through legume cover crop cultivation – evidence from Northern Benin. *Soil and Tillage Research* **245**, 106319.

Youssouf, I. and Lawani, M. (2000) Les sols béninois : classification dans la Base de référence mondiale. In *Quatorzième Réunion du Sous-Comité ouest et centre africain de corrélation des sols pour la mise en valeur des terres*, Abomey: FAO.

Zhang, T., Liu, Y. and Li, L. (2024) Sugarcane/soybean intercropping with reduced nitrogen application synergistically increases plant carbon fixation and soil organic carbon sequestration. *Plants* **13**, 2337.

Zhao, X., Dong, Q., Han, Y., Zhang, K., Shi, X., Yang, X., Yuan, Y., Zhou, D., Wang, K., Wang, X., Jiang, C., Liu, X., Zhang, H., Zhang, Z. and Yu, H. (2022) Maize/peanut intercropping improves nutrient uptake of side-row maize and system microbial community diversity. *BMC Microbiology* **22**, 1–16.

<footnote>Cite this article: Yemadje PL, Akplo TM, Imorou L, Sekloka E, and Tittonell P. No-tillage and intercropping improve the yield and profitability of maize-cotton rotations in Northern Benin. *Experimental Agriculture*. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479725100136</footnote>