Next Article in Journal
Comparison of East Asian Summer Monsoon Simulation between an Atmospheric Model and a Coupled Model: An Example from CAS-ESM
Previous Article in Journal
Impacts of the Interannual Variability of the Kuroshio Extension on the East Asian Trough in Winter
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Atmosphere
Volume 13
Issue 7
10.3390/atmos13070997
atmosphere-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Pearl Millet (Pennisetum glaucum) Seedlings Transplanting as Climate Adaptation Option for Smallholder Farmers in Niger

by
Bouba Traore
1,2,*,
Abdourazak Alio Moussa
1,
Amadou Traore
2,
Yahaya Seydou Abdel Nassirou
1,
Malick N. Ba
1 and
Ramadjita Tabo
1
1
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Niamey BP 12404, Niger
2
Institut D’Economie Rurale (IER-Mali), Koutiala BP 28, Mali
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Atmosphere 2022, 13(7), 997; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13070997
Submission received: 28 April 2022 / Revised: 1 June 2022 / Accepted: 16 June 2022 / Published: 21 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Climate Change Adaptation in Agriculture)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Pearl millet is the most widely grown cereal crop in the arid and semi-arid regions of Africa, and in Niger in particular. To determine an optimized management strategy for smallholder farmers in southern Niger to cope with crop production failure and improve cropping performance in the context of climate change and variability, multi-site trials were conducted to evaluate the impacts of transplanting on pearl millet growth and productivity. Eight treatments viz. T1-0NPK (100% transplanting without NPK), T1-NPK (100% transplanting + NPK), T2-0NPK (100% transplanting of empty hills without NPK), T2-NPK (100% transplanting of empty hills + NPK), T3-0NPK (50% transplanting of empty hills without NPK), T3-NPK (50% transplanting of empty hills + NPK), T4-0NPK (farmer practice without NPK), and T4-NPK (farmer practice + NPK) were included in the experiment. Compared to farmer practice, transplanting significantly reduced time to tillering, flowering, and maturity stages by 15%, 27%, and 11%, respectively. The results also revealed that T1-NPK significantly increased panicle weight, total biomass, grain yield, and plant height by 40%, 38%, 27%, and 23%, respectively. Farmers’ evaluations of the experiments supported these findings, indicating three substantial advantages of transplanting, including higher yield (37.50% of responses), larger, more vigorous and more panicles (34.17% of responses), and good tillering (28.33% of responses). An economic profitability analysis of the system revealed that biomass gain (XOF 359,387/ha) and grain gain (XOF 324,388/ha) increased by 34% and 22%, respectively, with T1-NPK. Therefore, it can be inferred that transplanting is a promising strategy for adapting millet cultivation to climate change and variability in southern Niger.

1. Introduction

Pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum) is one of the most significant staple crops of arid and semi-arid regions of Africa, particularly in the West African Sahel [1,2,3,4]. It is cultivated as the most resilient crop [5,6] and the only cereal crop that gives reliable yield under severe abiotic stresses that limit crop production due to erratic rainfall, drought, low soil fertility, high salinity, low pH, and high temperature [7]. The Sahel is regarded as a hotspot for climate change threats and risk to weather-dependent sectors such as agriculture [8,9].
In Niger, pearl millet dominates the agricultural production sector and accounts for approximately 75% of the national cereal production [10,11]. The onset of the rainy season is the most important driver of agricultural management [8,12]. It directly affects crop management practices, especially planting date, which has a significant effect on crop yield [13]. Given the unpredictability of the onset of the rainy season and subsequent individual rainfall events, as well as the large variability in total seasonal rainfall, agricultural production in the Sahel region of West Africa has become insufficient and uncertain to meet food security [14].
Commonly, subsistence farmers in Niger (with little or no access to irrigation water) wait for the beginning of the rains before sowing. Given the unpredictability of the onset of the wet season and of subsequent individual rainfall events, and the large variability in the total seasonal rainfall, the initial sowing may completely or partly fail and/or the crop may not reach maturity before soil moisture is exhausted. Most often, crop establishment becomes effective only after one or more planting failures, resulting in large losses in seed and capital for farmers [4]. This trend is worsened by the high variability of the start and end dates of the rainy season, as well as dry spells, which no longer allow rainfed cereals to complete their developmental cycles effectively [15]. This has particularly detrimental impacts on the agricultural production and yields [8,16,17,18,19]. In this context, ensuring food security, particularly in light of climate change and variability, remains challenging and constantly urges for the modification of agro-techniques [3,8]. One such modification that is gaining attention in recent years for enhancing cereal productivity, including sorghum, and pearl millet, is the adaptation of transplanting techniques as an option to direct sowing for crop establishment, especially in unfavorable agro-climatic circumstances where traditional methods are not plausible [3]. This study compared farmer practice against a crop production package consisting of transplanting and mineral fertilizer microdosing. The effects of the individual technologies are well known. The transplanting approach has proved successful for reducing risk and boosting yield in many semi-arid regions of the world. This approach has already been extensively utilized around Lake Chad, where sorghum nurseries are formed during the rainy season and transplanted at the end of the rains into sandy clay and clay soils that store water during the wet season [20,21,22]. Additionally, various literature evidence implies that transplanting has been attempted in cereals such as sorghum and pearl millet, with mostly promising outcomes. In the event of a delayed beginning of rainfall or an early break, transplanting pearl millet seedlings is a feasible alternative to direct sowing, since seedlings can still be grown in a nursery for another few days [3]. Upadhyay et al. [23] and Singh et al. [24] noticed enhancement of pearl millet yield and recoupment of yield reduction under late sowing conditions. Young et al. [25] reported that transplanted pearl millet achieved earlier flowering, maturity, and higher grain and stover yields than direct sowing. Microdosing has been tested since the early 1990s in the Sahelian zone using rates in the order of 2 g diammonium phosphate (DAP) or 6 g NPK per hill [26]. Research from Mali and Sudan has shown that even lower microdosing rates can increase yield. In central Mali, it was found that 0.6 g NPK.hill−1 gave a yield increase in pearl millet of 54.9% compared with the control [27], while in Sudan, a dose of 0.3 g hill−1 gave a yield advantage over the control of 31.3% [27]. However, there are very few reports on the effects of transplanting and microdosing in southern Niger.
Therefore, to guide future adaptive responses and to disseminate the transplanting approach to more resource-poor subsistence farmers who experience food insecurity in high-risk environments, multi-site experiments were conducted to evaluate with the farmers the effects of transplanting combined with microdosing on pearl millet production. The overall objective of this study was to determine an optimized management strategy for smallholder farmers to mitigate pearl millet production failure and improve cropping performance in the context of rainfall scarcity. More specifically, the study seeks to: (i) assess the effects of transplanting on pearl millet growth, productivity, and economic return; (ii) determine farmers’ perceptions to pearl millet transplanting; and (iii) propose potential adaptation options for pearl millet producers in southern Niger.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

This study was carried out in the Zinder region located in southern Niger. The experiments were conducted in the departments of Magaria and Dungass during the growing season of 2021. The selected villages were Angoual Gamdji (13°03′ N, 8°87′ W), Katirgé (13°06′ N, 8°17′ W), Sawaya (13°09′ N, 8°80′ W), Dan Kirey (12°98′ N, 9°25′ W), Tanti (12°99′ N, 9°33′ W), and Jan Majé (13°03′ N, 9°39′ W) (Figure 1). These villages were selected based on their representativeness of the region and their accessibility during the whole season. The Zinder region covers a large area of climatic and environmental zones. The rainy season lasts from May to October with rainfall peaks in August. The dry season comprises a relatively cold period from November to February and a hot period lasting from March to May. In the northeast part of the region, the average rainfall is less than 100 mm/year and the vegetation is sparse and of the Saharan type, while at the southern limit, it exceeds 600 mm/year. Magaria and Dungass are located on the isohyet 400–600 mm. The vegetation is of the Sahelian type, characterized by agroforestry parks, generally dominated by species belonging to the Combretaceae and Fabaceae families. The study sites’ soils are mainly sandy with low fertility. Soil property average values were 5.57 for pH, 1.23 g kg–1 for organic C, 0.08 g kg–1 for total N, 10.7 mg kg–1 for P, 0.10 cmol+ kg–1 for exchangeable K, 887 g kg–1 for sand, and 63 g kg–1 for clay [28]. The pH level relates a very high acidity of the soil, while the other parameters are very low compared to standards [29].

2.2. Experimental Design

The experimental design was a split-plot with mode of planting on the main plot and microdosing on the smaller plots. The mode of planting comprised 4 levels viz. 100% transplanting, 100% transplanting of empty hills, 50% transplanting of empty hills, and farmer practice (as a control). The split factor was fertilization with 2 levels viz. microdose of 6 g/hole of NPK and no application of NPK. The 100% transplanting treatment consisted of transplanting the whole plot. The 100% transplanting of empty hills treatment consisted of replanting (by seedlings produced in nurseries) all the hills that failed to emerge (gaps from classical sowing) whereas the 50% transplanting of empty hills treatment consisted of replanting half of the empty planting hills. Therefore, the experiment included eight treatments viz. T1-0NPK (100% transplanting without NPK), T1-NPK (100% transplanting + NPK), T2-0NPK (100% transplanting of empty hills without NPK), T2-NPK (100% transplanting of empty hills + NPK), T3-0NPK (50% transplanting of empty hills without NPK), T3-NPK (50% transplanting of empty hills + NPK), T4-0NPK (farmer practice without NPK), and T4-NPK (farmer practice + NPK). The experiment consisted of four plots (eight subplots) per study site. The plot size was 50 m2 (10 m × 5 m) in both experiments. Each site (village) was considered as an experimental replicate for data analysis.

2.3. Crop Management

Local pearl millet varieties produced and grown by farmers in the area were used as plant material. Seeds with an average density of 20 g/m² were planted in a nursery (3 m × 1 m) installed in a restricted area where the water supply and fertilizer were controlled (Figure 2A). Depending on the occurrence of the first useful rainfall (≥15 mm) [4], in each site, thirty-seven- to forty-day-old seedlings from nurseries were transplanted into each experimental field (Figure 2B). A plot without any interventions (transplanting or replanting) was considered as an experimental control. Plant density was fixed at 19,600 hills/ha with 0.75 m between and within rows. All rows were thinned (3 plants/hill) to achieve the above density. NPK fertilizer in a rate of 6 g/hole was applied by microdose to 50% of the subplots between 17 and 19 days after transplanting, depending on the study site. To ensure better plant growth (Figure 3A), weeds and insects were cautiously controlled until harvesting time (Figure 3B). The specifications and details of all cropping operations are given in Table 1.

2.4. Data Collection

Weather data were obtained from the National Meteorological Department of Niger. These included rainfall, the maximum and minimum temperatures, and relative humidity. Data collection involved traits related to phenology (plant height, tiller number, 50% tillering, 50% flowering, 50% maturity), biomass, and yield for each treatment (Table 2 and Table 3). For plant height and tiller number, the measurements concerned two central rows (to avoid border effects) accounting for 10 hills per row (one plant per hill) and 20 plants per treatment at the heading stage. Plant density was obtained by counting the plant number for three central rows per treatment. For traits such as 50% tillering, 50% flowering, and 50% maturity, the number of days from sowing/transplanting until 50% of the plants per plot had reached the stage were counted. For yield and its components, such as panicle weight and grain yield, the measurements were taken in three central rows per treatment at harvest (16.9 m2). For total dry biomass determination, three central rows per treatment were also weighed after sun-drying.

2.5. Farmers’ Perception of Pearl Millet Transplanting

This investigation was based on individual interviews survey and field observations. Data were collected using a well-structured questionnaire. From all villages, with the help of villages’ chiefs, one hundred and twenty (120) millet producers (20 per village) were selected and surveyed. Throughout the survey, data collection was focused on the prevalence of farmers’ perceptions on transplanting and its appropriateness to mitigate and cope with pearl millet production failure in southern Niger.

2.6. Statistical Analyses

Descriptive statistics including mean, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation were calculated to discriminate the different traits assessed. Each site was considered as an experimental replicate for data analysis. The conditions for normality and homogeneity of variance of the residuals were verified using Ryan–Joiner and Levene tests, respectively. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) using the general linear model was performed to evaluate the effects of the different treatments. The Newman–Keuls method was used for pairwise comparisons. The relationship between yield and rainfall amounts recorded between planting and harvest date was evaluated using the Pearson correlation test. A p-value of 5% was considered as threshold for significant differences. The analyses were performed using Minitab17.0 statistical software (Minitab Inc., State College, PA, USA) and GraphPad Prism 8.0.1 was used for graphs preparation.

2.7. Economic Gain Analysis

To evaluate the economic gain per hectare for each treatment, we used a gross margin (GM) analysis model, which is equal to the difference between total revenue (TR) and total variable cost (TVC) per hectare [30,31]:
G M = ∑ T R − ∑ T V C
Total revenue was defined as the total market price of production per hectare multiplied by crop yields (grain or biomass), whilst total variable cost included costs of production such as nursery management, seedling transportation, labor, seeds, fertilizers, and other farmer operations. Land and environmental externalities were not accounted into the total cost. The economic gain was expressed in West African CFA francs (XOF).

3. Results

3.1. Weather Variability

High variability in rainfall was noted across villages as well as between months (Figure 4). Dan Kirey received 641 mm, while Angoual Gamdji received 439 mm. The beginning of the season was almost dry in Jan Majé, Tanti, and Dan Kirey, with rainfall amounts of 10 mm, 13 mm, and 16 mm in June, respectively, whereas Angoual Gamdji, Sawaya, and Katirgé had considerably greater rainfall amounts of 48 mm, 46 mm, and 34.5 mm in June, respectively. The wettest month was August, with 218 mm, and the driest month was October, with 22 mm. Overall, 34% to 39% of total rain occurred between July and August against 5% in June (starting of the season) and 4% in October (end of the season). The end of the season was completely dry in Angoual Gamdji, with no rain recorded in October against 50 mm and 40 mm in Sawaya and Jan Majé, respectively.
Similar weather conditions were observed across study sites for temperature and relative humidity. During the trials, regardless of the study site, the maximum temperature varied from 25.63 °C (October) to 42.11 °C (June) while the minimum temperature varied from 28.13 °C (June) to 15.01 °C (October). The relative humidity varied from 93.44% to 32.88% (Figure 5).

Rainfall Variability Correlation with Pearl Millet Yield

Grain and biomass yields of millet varied substantially depending on seasonal rainfall (Figure 6). The correlation of grain yield with seasonal rainfall recorded from planting to harvest was highly significant (r = 0.56; p < 0.0001). Similarly, there was also a very significant positive correlation between seasonal rainfall and total plant biomass (r = 0.55; p < 0.0001).

3.2. Effect of Pearl Millet Transplanting on Phenology

The durations of the period from planting to the different phenological stages of millet were significantly reduced (p < 0.05) with millet transplanting (Table 2). The treatment T1 reached the tillering, flowering, and physiological maturity stages at 14 days, 35 days, and 59 days after transplanting compared to 19 days, 61 days, and 74 days for T4. Therefore, 100% transplanting decreased the time to 50% tillering, 50% flowering, and 50% maturity by 15%, 27%, and 11%, respectively, as compared to farmer practice.

3.3. Effect of Transplanting and NPK Application on Plant Growth Parameters

The ANOVA results regarding plant growth parameters are presented in Table 3. A highly significant effect was observed for mode of planting (p = 0.001). Mean plant density obtained was statistically similar amongst the treatments T1, T2, and T3, while they were significantly higher to that of farmer practice (T4). Fertilizer application did not show any significant differences between treatments. Highly significant differences were observed among treatments for tillers number (p < 0.0001). In all, 50% transplanting of empty pockets combined with NPK (T3-NPK) followed by 100% transplanting of empty pockets combined with NPK (T2-NPK) significantly achieved the highest tiller number, while 50% transplanting of empty pockets without NPK (T3-0NPK) followed by 100% transplanting without NPK (T1-0NPK) treatments showed the lowest tiller number. Remarkably, farmer practice treatment without NPK (T4-0NPK) showed a significantly higher number of tillers as compared to 100% transplanting without NPK (T1-0NPK). The interaction effects were also highly significant among treatments. The mode of planting and NPK application significantly influenced plant height. The highest plant heights among all treatments were observed from T1-0NPK and T1-NPK treatments, with 1.66 cm and 1.62 cm, respectively. T3-0NPK and T4-0NPK showed the lowest plant heights with 0.92 cm and 1.02 cm, respectively. Therefore, compared to farmer practice, 100% transplanting with NPK significantly increased the plant height by 23%. However, the interaction effects for NPK application and mode of planting were not significant.
Mode of planting and NPK application significantly improved the grain yield (p = 0.015) and total dry biomass (p = 0.001) of the millet crop. The largest observed grain yield was obtained with 100% transplanting of millet associated with fertilizer application with a mean of 1275 kg/ha. This was statistically similar to the yield obtained with treatment T2 (1065 kg/ha) and treatment T3 (1104 kg/ha) associated with fertilizer application. However, that was significantly greater than the yields obtained under farmer practice (T4) by 27%. Grain yield obtained under treatments T1, T2, T3, and T4 with fertilizer application was significantly greater than that of no fertilizer application by 19%, 20%, 21%, and 10%, respectively.
Likewise, with a mean of 4176 kg/ha, 100% transplanting of millet associated with fertilizer increased the biomass yield by 38%, compared to farmer practice. Biomass yields obtained with T2 (3088 kg/ha) and T3 (3407 kg/ha) were 25% and 29% higher than those obtained with farmer practice. The highest observed panicle weight (2637 kg/ha) was obtained with 100% transplanting of millet associated with fertilizer application, which was 40% higher than that obtained with farmer practice.

3.4. Systems Economic Gains

Results from economic analysis showed that biomass and grain gains per hectare with millet under different planting modes varied substantially, with biomass gain relatively greater than grain gain (Table 4). Higher biomass and grain gains were obtained with 100% transplanting combined with NPK (XOF 359,387/ha for biomass and XOF 324,388/ha for grains) which were comparatively higher than gains obtained with T2, T3, and T4. Grain gain for T1-NPK (XOF 324,388/ha) was 22% higher than that obtained with T4-0NPK (XOF 208,166/ha). Similarly, biomass gain from T1-NPK (XOF 359,387/ha) was 34% higher than that of T4-0NPK (XOF 176,667/ha). In this study, with 100% transplanting combined with the application of 6 g/hole of NPK by microdose, the biomass and grain gains of millet increased by 34% and 22%, respectively.

3.5. Farmers Perception of Pearl Millet Transplanting

From this investigation, only 15.83% of the surveyed farmers had previously practiced transplantation with millet, while 84.17% had never practiced transplanting (Figure 7). Farmers who claim to use this strategy do so by replacing empty pockets (100% of responses). When asked if they intend to use transplanting as a new approach to mitigate millet production failure in the future, 98.33% responded positively.
All surveyed millet producers who practice or intend to use transplanting noted three major benefits of transplanting viz. high productivity (37.50% of responses), large and more panicles (34.17% of responses), and very good tillering (28.33% of responses).
Although more than 98% of the farmers were satisfied with this strategy, around 2% of the farmers were not, mainly because they are not familiar with the technique (70.83% of responses), transplanting is not adapted with millet (18.33% of responses), and it causes rooting problems for plant fixation (5.5% of responses). The constraints regarding soil poverty (2.67% of responses) and costs for transplanting operations (2.67% of responses) were the less cited by farmers.

4. Discussion

4.1. Transplanting to Avoid Rainfall Scarcity at the Beginning/End of Rainy Season

Our results indicate that the yield of millet decreases when planting is delayed, suggesting an important role for timely planting in dealing with rainfall variability. Other studies have also shown that delayed planting of millet resulted in significant yield losses [13,32,33]. Farmers’ evaluation of the experiments indicated that transplanting plays an important role for a better crop stand establishment (by reducing the need for replanting and gap filling) as well as for increasing yield. Additionally, improved germination in the nursery compared to a direct-sown field can facilitate pest/disease control and fertilizer application to the plant [22]. Furthermore, transplanting (owing to the high leaf area index (for seedlings) at the period of maximum soil moisture) can enable efficient use of available soil moisture in a given season, thereby reducing the risk of early/terminal drought and hunger gap between seasons (crucial for family welfare and survival) [22].

4.2. Transplanting for Boosting Pearl Millet Productivity and Resilience

In this study, transplanting was found to significantly influence plant density, plant height, and yield of millet as compared to the farmer practice. These findings are in line with those reported recently by Gudadhe et al. [2], who found that transplanting millet could optimize crop density and yield. Transplanting of pearl millet assures high crop stand establishment as chances of seedling mortality are comparatively less than direct seeded millet due to choosing healthy seedlings for transplanting. Furthermore, transplanting requires less seed rate to produce optimum plant population than direct sowing. Fanadzo et al. [34] stated that transplanted maize in South African conditions ensured better plant stand (96% of target) as compared to direct seeded maize (78% of target). Thus, raising pearl millet seedlings in a nursery under controlled conditions and sufficient monitoring followed by their transplanting under favorable field conditions can be a suitable strategy to cope with seedlings’ damage-related problems [34]. Based on results, transplanting increased significantly grain and total biomass yields. Earlier, Pal [35] and Mapfumo [36] also confirmed the increments of grain yield of pearl millet grown through the transplanting method. Further, Jan et al. [37] observed that pearl millet transplanting achieved best plant height, number of leaves per plant, panicle length, panicle weight, number of grains per panicle, 1000 grain weight, and grain yield as it utilized more photoperiod for light interception, production, and translocation of photosynthates to various sinks. The works of several researchers around the world suggest that transplanted pearl millet expresses better growth and out-yields direct seeded/broadcasted pearl millet. Moreover, transplanting has been reported to successfully reduce downy mildew infestation [38] and millet stem borer attack [39] in the crop period.
Our findings showed that transplanting negatively affects tiller number as compared to farmer practice, which disagree with farmer’s evaluation of the experiments. Previous research has indicated that transplanting was detrimental to the development of tillers in millet, most likely due to the sudden bolting stimulus that seedlings from nurseries would have received prior to being transplanted into the field [4]. This stimulus would have oriented the seedlings’ reaction to no longer waste time producing tillers by anticipating the other phenological stages (jointing, heading, flowering, and maturation), thus allowing the crop to complete its cycle before being subjected to any other stress [22,40,41].
This study also revealed that transplanting significantly reduced the duration of the different phenological stages of millet, in particular tillering, flowering, and maturity. This can increase the possibility of avoiding terminal drought, thereby increasing farmers’ flexibility and adaptability. Transplanting of pearl millet and sorghum seedlings was previously reported to compensate the crop growth period to complete crop life cycle [42]. Transplanting was also indicated to relief millet crops in avoiding the impacts of dry spells, which are particularly prevalent at the beginning and the end of the cropping season in the Sahel [4]. Transplanting by reducing the plant cycle duration also enables farmers an early harvest (by 2 weeks), which can greatly contribute to reduce the hunger gap between seasons, extremely crucial for poorer farmers. Further, an early harvest while the price is high can allow farmers to sell grains for a high price and avoid buying food when it is most expensive. Early maturity of transplanted pearl millet was also stated to reduce hunger days for the people of arid and semi-arid areas of Zimbabwe and Ghana, where even women are expressing their strong interest in transplanting techniques [25]. Thus, in an unpredictable climatic context, transplanting ought to be a resilient option for farmers and could promote millet crop yield.

4.3. Combined Effect of Transplanting and Fertilization on Millet Productivity and Gain

Our findings showed that using NPK by microdose could substantially increase millet yield. For all treatments, yields obtained without fertilizer application were significantly lower as compared to the treatment with fertilizer, indicating the crucial role of mineral fertilization in transplanting, as well as in farmer practice. This increase in yields is in agreement with the results of several other authors in Sudano-Sahelian countries [8,43,44,45]. However, proper adaptation requires an integrated approach including proper planting, for there is an important interaction between fertilizer application and mode of planting for most of the traits evaluated [8,46].
Understanding the economic benefit is critical for targeting and for guiding research, investment, policies, and institutional objectives, including extension and input service delivery systems, and ultimately to close the gaps in yield and gross margin [31]. In this study, the greatest gains for grain and biomass were achieved with 100% transplanting. This is mainly due to the highest grain and biomass yield obtained with that treatment. However, this gain can be subjected to variation depending particularly on market opportunities regarding the price variation across the same year for cereal grains in the region. Despite the fact that biomass gain was greater than grain gain in this investigation, farmers’ preferences are often oriented toward grains to meet urgent food needs. Selling millet grains is not a priority for most of the farmers, but it occurs, especially when there is a surplus of production or a social emergency requiring cash. However, the profitability of the millet production system depends mainly on farm size, family labor, seed access and quality, and fertilization, as well as crop protection strategies.

4.4. Constraints for Pearl Millet Transplanting

Apart from having exciting outcomes with pearl millet, transplanting also has various adoption limits as well as drawbacks. Since the transplanting technique for millet is highly unusual, farmers’ stereotypic mentality in sticking to traditional crop establishing methods instead of updating themselves with technological initiatives is predominant. Furthermore, insufficient extension services, lack of adequate demonstration and awareness, lack of assistance and guarantee in case of risk, etc., contribute to the unpopularity of pearl millet transplanting. Another important reason for farmers’ reluctance to adopt transplanting is labor shortage, as it is a labor-intensive approach involving more steps than farmer practice. Furthermore, transplanting necessitates an initial capital investment for fencing, nursery preparation, and monitoring, which marginal smallholder farmers cannot afford. In addition, as opposed to farmer practice, which takes less mind focus, transplanting necessitates more care and attention in terms of seedling management and preservation. Another constraint is the long distance between the nursery and the main field, as transplanting requires a quick response from uprooting seedlings from the nursery to implantation in the main field [3].

5. Conclusions

Farmers’ agricultural practices can be substantially improved by the use of the transplanting approach, therefore enhancing the ability to tackle challenges posed by interannual rainfall variability, particularly in the Sahelian context. In this study, pearl millet transplanting as compared to farmer practice, a significantly higher pearl millet yield and reduced durations of tillering, flowering, and physiological maturity were achieved through seedling transplanting combined with mineral microdosing. Farmers’ evaluation of the experiments indicated several advantages of transplanting, including higher yield, good tillering, and larger and more vigorous panicles. An economic analysis of the systems showed a significant profitability increase for grain and biomass production. Transplanting therefore offered the prospect of reducing risk and improving millet yield in marginal areas, thereby increasing local food security. This approach needs to be disseminated properly through strong engagement of local extension services. Training of farmers on transplanting techniques could be critical to inform decision making in crop production.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.T. and M.N.B.; methodology, A.T.; software, A.A.M. and Y.S.A.N.; validation, B.T. and A.T.; formal analysis, A.A.M. and B.T.; investigation, A.A.M. and Y.S.A.N.; resources, R.T.; data curation, A.A.M. and B.T.; writing—original draft preparation, B.T. and A.A.M.; writing—review and editing, visualization, A.T.; project administration M.N.B. and R.T.; funding acquisition, B.T. and M.N.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research has been funded by the USAID Development Food Security Assistance program (DFSA/GIRMA) of Catholic Relief Services (CRS) (grant number: 72DFFP18CA00003) under the ICRISAT agreement (grant number: NE.19.SUBCONT.8563.672.P0410.01.00); however, the views expressed do not necessarily reflect the US government’s official policies.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge and thank the GIRMA project in Niger for supporting data collection and the scientific publication of the work.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Chouhan, M.; Gudadhe, N.; Kumar, D.; Kumawat, A.; Kumar, R. Transplanting dates and nitrogen levels influences on growth, yield attributes and yield of summer pearlmillet. BioScan 2015, 10, 1295–1298. [Google Scholar]
  2. Gudadhe, N.N.; Thanki, J.; Pankhaniya, R.; Usdadia, V. Feasibility of Late Transplanted Summer Pearl Millet for Prolonged rabi Season with Integrated Nitrogen Management Under Indian Coastal Region. Maydica 2020, 65, 13. [Google Scholar]
  3. Biswas, S. Prospects and Constraints of Transplanted Maize, Wheat, Sorghum and Pearl Millet: A Review. Int. J. Environ. Clim. Change 2020, 10, 24–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lawali, M.N.; Alhassane, A.; Traoré, S.B.; Sarr, B.; Seidou, O.; Balla, A. Effets de la transplantation de jeunes plants sur la croissance et le développement du mil au Niger. Cameroon J. Biol. Biochem. Sci. 2018, 26, 6–15. [Google Scholar]
  5. Sehgal, D.; Rajaram, V.; Armstead, I.P.; Vadez, V.; Yadav, Y.P.; Hash, C.T.; Yadav, R.S. Integration of gene-based markers in a pearl millet genetic map for identification of candidate genes underlying drought tolerance quantitative trait loci. BMC Plant Biol. 2012, 12, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Krishnan, R.; Meera, M. Pearl millet minerals: Effect of processing on bioaccessibility. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 55, 3362–3372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Djanaguiraman, M.; Perumal, R.; Ciampitti, I.; Gupta, S.; Prasad, P. Quantifying pearl millet response to high temperature stress: Thresholds, sensitive stages, genetic variability and relative sensitivity of pollen and pistil. Plant Cell Environ. 2018, 41, 993–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Traore, B.; van Wijk, M.T.; Descheemaeker, K.; Corbeels, M.; Rufino, M.C.; Giller, K.E. Climate variability and change in southern Mali: Learning from farmer perceptions and on-farm trials. Exp. Agric. 2015, 51, 615–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Alvar-Beltrán, J.; Dao, A.; Dalla Marta, A.; Heureux, A.; Sanou, J.; Orlandini, S. Farmers’ perceptions of climate change and agricultural adaptation in Burkina Faso. Atmosphere 2020, 11, 827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Moussa, S.; Tougiani, A. Farmers’ strategies for adapting to climate change in Niger. ETFRN News, December 2020. [Google Scholar]
  11. Mohamed, A.B.; van Duivenbooden, N.; Abdoussallam, S. Impact of climate change on agricultural production in the Sahel–Part 1. Methodological approach and case study for millet in Niger. Clim. Change 2002, 54, 327–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ingram, K.; Roncoli, M.; Kirshen, P. Opportunities and constraints for farmers of West Africa to use seasonal precipitation forecasts with Burkina Faso as a case study. Agric. Syst. 2002, 74, 331–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Nwajei, S.E.; Omoregie, U.A.; Ogedegbe, F.O. Effects of planting dates on the growth and grain yield of two indigenous varieties of pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.) in a forest-savanna transition zone of Edo State, Nigeria. Acta Agric. Slov. 2019, 114, 169–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Van Ittersum, M.K.; Van Bussel, L.G.; Wolf, J.; Grassini, P.; Van Wart, J.; Guilpart, N.; Claessens, L.; De Groot, H.; Wiebe, K.; Mason-D’Croz, D. Can sub-Saharan Africa feed itself? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 14964–14969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Alhassane, A.; Salack, S.; Ly, M.; Lona, I.; Traoré, S.B.; Sarr, B. Évolution des risques agroclimatiques associés aux tendances récentes du régime pluviométrique en Afrique de l’Ouest soudano-sahélienne. Sécheresse 2013, 24, 282–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sissoko, K.; van Keulen, H.; Verhagen, J.; Tekken, V.; Battaglini, A. Agriculture, livelihoods and climate change in the West African Sahel. Reg. Environ. Change 2011, 11, 119–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Zougmoré, R.; Partey, S.; Ouédraogo, M.; Omitoyin, B.; Thomas, T.; Ayantunde, A.; Ericksen, P.; Said, M.; Jalloh, A. Toward climate-smart agriculture in West Africa: A review of climate change impacts, adaptation strategies and policy developments for the livestock, fishery and crop production sectors. Agric. Food Secur. 2016, 5, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Ado, A.M.; Leshan, J.; Savadogo, P.; Bo, L.; Shah, A.A. Farmers’ awareness and perception of climate change impacts: Case study of Aguie district in Niger. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2019, 21, 2963–2977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Taye, M.; Simane, B.; Zaitchik, B.F.; Selassie, Y.G.; Setegn, S. Rainfall Variability across the Agro-Climatic Zones of a Tropical Highland: The Case of the Jema Watershed, Northwestern Ethiopia. Environments 2019, 6, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Chantereau, J.; Nicou, R. Sorghum. The Tropical Agriculturalist; Macmillan Education: London, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  21. Olabanji, O.; Tabo, R.; Flower, D.; Ajayi, O.; Ushie, F.; Kaigama, B.; Ikwelle, M. Survey of masakwa sorghum growing areas in northeastern Nigeria. Int. Sorghum Millets Newsl. 1996, 37, 61–63. [Google Scholar]
  22. Young, E.; Mottram, A. Transplanting Sorghum and Millet—A Key to Risk Management; Food and Agriculture Organization: Rome, Italy, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  23. Upadhyay, P.; Dixit, A.; Patel, J.; Chavda, J. Response of summer pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum) to time and method of planting, age of seedling and phosphorus grown on loamy sand soils of Gujarat. Indian J. Agron. 2001, 46, 126–130. [Google Scholar]
  24. Singh, D.; Baghel, R.; Rajput, R.; Kushwah, S.; Rawat, G. Influence of seedling age and plant geometry on yield and uptake of nutrients in transplanted pearl millet under late sown condition. J. Multidiscip. Adv. Res. 2017, 6, 149–152. [Google Scholar]
  25. Young, E.; Mottram, A.; Atokple, I.; Abunyewa, A.A.; Terbobri, P.; Kasei, C. Transplanting Sorghum and Millet as a Means of Increasing Food Security in Semi-Arid, Low Income Countries; University of Wales: Bangor, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  26. Bielders, C.L.; Gérard, B. Millet response to microdose fertilization in south–western Niger: Effect of antecedent fertility management and environmental factors. Field Crops Res. 2015, 171, 165–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Coulibaly, A.; Woumou, K.; Aune, J.B. Sustainable intensification of sorghum and pearl millet production by seed priming, seed treatment and fertilizer microdosing under different rainfall regimes in Mali. Agronomy 2019, 9, 664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Maman, N.; Dicko, M.; Abdou, G.; Kouyate, Z.; Wortmann, C. Pearl millet and cowpea intercrop response to applied nutrients in West Africa. Agron. J. 2017, 109, 2333–2342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Fairhurst, T. (Ed.) Manuel de Gestion Integrée de la Fertilité des Sols; Africa Soil Health Consortium: Nairobi, Kenya, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  30. Sogoba, B.; Traoré, B.; Safia, A.; Samaké, O.; Dembélé, G.; Diallo, S.; Kaboré, R.; Benié, G.; Zougmoré, R.B.; Goïta, K. On-farm evaluation on yield and economic performance of cereal-cowpea intercropping to support the smallholder farming system in the Soudano-Sahelian zone of mali. Agriculture 2020, 10, 214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Devkota, M.; Yigezu, Y.A. Explaining yield and gross margin gaps for sustainable intensification of the wheat-based systems in a Mediterranean climate. Agric. Syst. 2020, 185, 102946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kamara, A.Y.; Ekeleme, F.; Chikoye, D.; Omoigui, L.O. Planting date and cultivar effects on grain yield in dryland corn production. Agron. J. 2009, 101, 91–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Soler, C.M.T.; Maman, N.; Zhang, X.; Mason, S.C.; Hoogenboom, G. Determining optimum planting dates for pearl millet for two contrasting environments using a modelling approach. J. Agric. Sci. 2008, 146, 445–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Fanadzo, M.; Chiduza, C.; Mnkeni, P. Comparative response of direct seeded and transplanted maize (Zea mays L.) to nitrogen fertilization at Zanyokwe irrigation scheme, Eastern Cape, South Africa. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2009, 4, 689–694. [Google Scholar]
  35. Pal, M. Bajra transplanting compensates for delayed sowing. Indian Farming 1976, 25, 21–22. [Google Scholar]
  36. Mapfumo, S. Transplanting Soghum and Pearl Millet from Nurseries as a Means of Increasing Food Security in Semi-Arid Zimbabwe. Master’s Thesis, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  37. Jan, A.; Khan, I.; Sohail, S.A.A.A. Sowing dates and sowing methods influenced on growth yield and yield components of pearl millet under rainfied conditions. Environ. Earth Sci. 2015, 5, 105–109. [Google Scholar]
  38. Khairwal, I.; Rai, K.; Diwakar, B.; Sharma, Y.; Rajpurohit, B.; Nirwan, B.; Bhattacharjee, R. Pearl Millet Crop Management and Seed Production Manual; International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics: Patancheru, India, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  39. Ajayi, O.; Labe, D. The effects of sowing date and planting method on stem borer damage in dauro millet. Ann. Appl. Biol. 1990, 117, 487–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Agbaje, G.; Olofintoye, J. Effect of transplanting on yield and growth of grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench). Tropicultura 2002, 20, 217–220. [Google Scholar]
  41. Assefa, D.; Belay, M.; Tsegay, D.; Haile, M. Transplanting Sorghum as a Means of Ensuring Food Security in Low Rainfall Sorghum Growing Areas of Northern Ethiopia; Drylands Coordination Group (DCG) report No. 48; Miljøhuset G9: Asmara, Ethiopia, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  42. Oswald, A.; Ransom, J.K.; Kroschel, J.; Sauerborn, J. Transplanting maize and sorghum reduces Striga hermonthica damage. Weed Sci. 2001, 49, 346–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Bationo, A.; Christianson, C.; Mokwunye, U. Soil fertility management of the pearl millet producing sandy soils of Sahelian West Africa: The Niger experience. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Soil, Crop, and Water Management Systems for Rainfed Agriculture in the Sudano-Sahelian Zone, Niamey, Niger, 11–16 January 1987; International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics: Patancheru, India, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  44. Obwocha, E.B.; Ramisch, J.J.; Duguma, L.; Orero, L. The Relationship between Climate Change, Variability, and Food Security: Understanding the Impacts and Building Resilient Food Systems in West Pokot County, Kenya. Sustainability 2022, 14, 765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Silungwe, F.R.; Graef, F.; Dorothea Bellingrath-Kimura, S.; Chilagane, E.A.; Tumbo, S.D.; Kahimba, F.C.; Lana, M.A. Modelling rainfed pearl millet yield sensitivity to abiotic stresses in semi-arid central Tanzania, Eastern Africa. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Traore, B.; Van Wijk, M.T.; Descheemaeker, K.; Corbeels, M.; Rufino, M.C.; Giller, K.E. Evaluation of climate adaptation options for Sudano-Sahelian cropping systems. Field Crops Res. 2014, 156, 63–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Atmosphere 13 00997 g001 550
Figure 1. Sites of transplanting.
Figure 1. Sites of transplanting.
Atmosphere 13 00997 g001
Atmosphere 13 00997 g002 550
Figure 2. Nursery (A) and transplanting operations (B) at the village of Dan Kirey.
Figure 2. Nursery (A) and transplanting operations (B) at the village of Dan Kirey.
Atmosphere 13 00997 g002
Atmosphere 13 00997 g003 550
Figure 3. Transplanted field (A) and harvested field (B) at the village of Katirgé.
Figure 3. Transplanted field (A) and harvested field (B) at the village of Katirgé.
Atmosphere 13 00997 g003
Atmosphere 13 00997 g004 550
Figure 4. Daily and cumulative rainfall during the growing season at the study sites.
Figure 4. Daily and cumulative rainfall during the growing season at the study sites.
Atmosphere 13 00997 g004
Atmosphere 13 00997 g005 550
Figure 5. Temperature and relative humidity during the growing season at the study sites.
Figure 5. Temperature and relative humidity during the growing season at the study sites.
Atmosphere 13 00997 g005
Atmosphere 13 00997 g006 550
Figure 6. Scatter plots of grain yield (A), total plant biomass (B), and growing season rainfall from planting to harvest for the different study sites. The points represent the average of six replicates.
Figure 6. Scatter plots of grain yield (A), total plant biomass (B), and growing season rainfall from planting to harvest for the different study sites. The points represent the average of six replicates.
Atmosphere 13 00997 g006
Atmosphere 13 00997 g007 550
Figure 7. Major benefits (in gray) and constraints (in black) of transplanting as listed by farmers.
Figure 7. Major benefits (in gray) and constraints (in black) of transplanting as listed by farmers.
Atmosphere 13 00997 g007
Table
Table 1. Cropping operations calendar.
Table 1. Cropping operations calendar.
OperationsKatirgéSawayaA. GamdjiDan KireyTantiJan Majé
Setting of nursery2 June 20212 June 20212 June 202131 May 202131 May 202131 May 2021
Planting4 July 20214 July 20214 July 20215 July 20215 July 20215 July 2021
Transplanting9 July 20219 July 20219 July 202110 July 202110 July 202110 July 2021
Transplanting of empty holes27 July 202127 July 202127 July 202129 July 202129 July 202129 July 2021
Thinning11 July 202113 July 202116 July 202114 July 202114 July 202114 July 2021
NPK application26 July 202127 July 202127 July 202129 July 202129 July 202129 July 2021
First weeding12 July 202117 July 202115 July 202112 July 202114 July 202112 July 2021
Second weeding4 August 20217 August 20212 August 20218 August 20215 August 20213 August 2021
Table
Table 2. Phenological stages according to the mode of planting.
Table 2. Phenological stages according to the mode of planting.
Mode of Planting50% Tillering50% Flowering50% Maturity
T114 b35 b59 b
T219 a61 a74 a
T319 a61 a74 a
T419 a61 a74 a
SD2.880.425.24
CV (%)16.811.207.51
p.value0.014<0.0001<0.0001
T1 (100% transplanting), T2 (100% transplanting), T3-0NPK (50% transplanting of empty hills), T4 (farmer practice); SD: standard deviation; and CV: coefficient of variation. The different superscript letter (a,b) per column indicate significant differences (Tukey’s test, p < 0.05) in the mean value of the treatments.
Table
Table 3. Effects of mode of planting, fertilization, and their interactions on plant height, tiller number, and yield-related traits.
Table 3. Effects of mode of planting, fertilization, and their interactions on plant height, tiller number, and yield-related traits.
TreatmentsPlant
Density
(Plants/ha)		Panicle
Weight
(kg/ha)		Total
Biomass
(kg/ha)		Grain
Yield
(kg/ha)		Plant
Height
(m)		Tiller Number
T1-NPK58,800 a2636.67 a4176.67 a1275.56 a1.62 a5.98 c,d
T1-0NPK56,233.33 a,b1625.56 b2498.89 c871.11 c,d1.66 a5.53 d
T2-NPK58,800 a1594.44 b3087.78 b1065.56 a,b,c1.30 b7.53 b
T2-0NPK56,700 a1322.22 c,d2822.78 b,c706.67 d1.04 c,d6.62 c
T3-NPK55,300 a,b,c1625.56 b3406.67 b1104.44 a,b1.03 c,d8.76 a
T3-0NPK50,166.67 b,c,d1067.22 e1758.33 d722.78 d0.92 d5.43 d
T4-NPK47,833.33 d1442.78 b,c2925 b,c890.56 b,c,d1.11 c7.54 b
T4-0NPK49,466.67 c,d1127.78 d,e1866.67 d727.22 d1.02 c,d6.64 c
p.value0.164<0.00010.0210.001<0.0001<0.0001
SD6531.5488.11146.8403.20.73.7
CV (%)12.8834.3842.1445.7357.6354.70
Mode of planting0.001<0.00010.0010.015<0.0001<0.0001
Fertilization0.186<0.0001<0.0001<0.00010.024<0.0001
Mode of planting × Fertilization0.465<0.00010.0080.3430.127<0.0001
T1-0NPK (100% transplanting without NPK), T1-NPK (100% transplanting + NPK), T2-0NPK (100% transplanting of empty hills without NPK), T2-NPK (100% trans-planting of empty hills + NPK), T3-0NPK (50% transplanting of empty hills without NPK), T3-NPK (50% transplanting of empty hills + NPK), T4-0NPK (farmer practice without NPK), and T4-NPK (farmer practice + NPK); SD: standard deviation; and CV: coefficient of variation. The different superscript letter (a,b,c,d,e) per column indicate significant differences (Tukey’s test, p < 0.05) in the mean value of the treatments.
Table
Table 4. Systems economic gains (per hectare) expressed in West African currency, the Franc CFA (XOF).
Table 4. Systems economic gains (per hectare) expressed in West African currency, the Franc CFA (XOF).
TreatmentsTotal CostGross Margin
Biomass		Gross Margin Grain
T1-NPK58,280359,387324,388
T1-0NPK23,000226,889238,333
T2-NPK53,280255,498266,388
T2-0NPK18,000264,278194,001
T3-NPK52,280288,387279,052
T3-0NPK17,000158,833199,834
T4-NPK45,280247,220221,888
T4-0NPK10,000176,667208,166
T1-0NPK (100% transplanting without NPK), T1-NPK (100% transplanting + NPK), T2-0NPK (100% transplanting of empty hills without NPK), T2-NPK (100% trans-planting of empty hills + NPK), T3-0NPK (50% transplanting of empty hills without NPK), T3-NPK (50% transplanting of empty hills + NPK), T4-0NPK (farmer practice without NPK), and T4-NPK (farmer practice + NPK).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Traore, B.; Moussa, A.A.; Traore, A.; Abdel Nassirou, Y.S.; Ba, M.N.; Tabo, R. Pearl Millet (Pennisetum glaucum) Seedlings Transplanting as Climate Adaptation Option for Smallholder Farmers in Niger. Atmosphere 2022, 13, 997. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13070997

AMA Style

Traore B, Moussa AA, Traore A, Abdel Nassirou YS, Ba MN, Tabo R. Pearl Millet (Pennisetum glaucum) Seedlings Transplanting as Climate Adaptation Option for Smallholder Farmers in Niger. Atmosphere. 2022; 13(7):997. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13070997

Chicago/Turabian Style

Traore, Bouba, Abdourazak Alio Moussa, Amadou Traore, Yahaya Seydou Abdel Nassirou, Malick N. Ba, and Ramadjita Tabo. 2022. "Pearl Millet (Pennisetum glaucum) Seedlings Transplanting as Climate Adaptation Option for Smallholder Farmers in Niger" Atmosphere 13, no. 7: 997. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13070997

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop