Perception by farmers of the determinants of irrigated rice yield in Mali

  • Bandiougou DiawaraEmail author
  • Mohamed Dicko
  • Yacouba Coulibaly
  • Mamadou Kabirou N’Diaye
  • Jean-Yves Jamin
  • Jean-Christophe Poussin
Research Article


Recommendations for crop management are based on agronomic diagnoses of yield determinants at plot scale usually without the farmers being involved in the evaluation process. Farmers may consequently not apply the recommendations that do not account for their own perception of yield determination. We assumed that (i) farmers have their own perceptions of yield determination; (ii) it is possible to access these perceptions through individual discussions with farmers; (iii) subsequent group discussions allow knowledge to be exchanged between farmers and a common viewpoint to be reached; (iv) agronomists can use this common viewpoint as a basis for building improved solutions in collaboration with the farmers. In this study, we used participatory methods to identify and discuss the visual references the farmers consider the crop growth as indicators to forecast the yield of their plot and the drivers they think affect these indicators. The study was conducted in two sites in the Office du Niger irrigated rice scheme in Mali and comprised three steps: (i) individual discussions with rice producers about their perception of how yield is determined, (ii) group discussions to share their individual perceptions and reach a common viewpoint, (iii) analysis of these perceptions. Seven production indicators and 29 factors that may affect these indicators were identified. The three mains indicators used by farmers were tiller abundance, hill density, and grain weight per panicle. Crop practices and constraints may prevent farmers from achieving high yields, such as a delay in the supply of fertilizers or in crop establishment. They had a complex perception of yield determination that was often close to agronomic knowledge. Here we demonstrate for the first time that farmers in the Office du Niger scheme have technical knowledge to which extension services could refer to provide relevant advice and tools for managing their constraints and improving yield.


Farmers’ perceptions Participatory approach Yield indicators West Africa Rice Office du Niger 



The European Union, IER/Mali and CIRAD/France supported this research. We thank colleagues from these institutions who provided insights and expertise, which greatly assisted our research. We thank the farmers in KO2 and Retail-IV, Office du Niger and IER officers for their participation in surveys. We also thank NGOs Nyeta Conseils/Mali and Lisode/Montpellier for their assistance.

Compliance with ethical standards

This study was funded by the European Union Seventh Framework Program (FP7-KBBE /2007-2013) under grant agreement number 265471.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Adamczewski A, Hertzog T, Jamin JY, Tonneau JP (2015) Competition for irrigated land: inequitable land management in the Office du Niger (Mali). Int J Sustain Dev 18(3):161–179. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anbumozhi V, Yamaji E, Tabuchi T (1998) Rice crop growth and yield as influenced by changes in ponding water depth, water regime and fertilization level. Agric Water Manag 37:241–253. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrios E, Delve RJ, Bekunda M, Mowo J, Agunda J, Ramisch J, Trejo MT, Thomas RJ (2006) Indicators of soil quality: a South–South development of a methodological guide for linking local and technical knowledge. Geoderma 135:248–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bélières J-F, Hilhorst T, Kébé D et al (2011) Irrigation et pauvreté: le cas de l’Office du Niger au Mali. Cah Agric 20:144–149Google Scholar
  5. Bockstaller C, Guichard L, Makowski D et al (2009) Agri-environmental indicators to assess cropping and farming systems: a review. In: Lichtfouse E, Navarrete M, Debaeke P, Véronique S, Alberola C (eds) Sustainable Agriculture. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 725–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brondeau F (2011) L’agro-business à l’assaut des terres irrigués de l’Office du Niger (Mali). Cah Agric 20:136–143Google Scholar
  7. Chatelin M-H, Poussin J-C (1991) Diagnostic d’exploitation agricole: apport de la simulation. Économie Rurale 206:77–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coulibaly YM, Bélières J-F, Koné Y (2006) Les exploitations agricoles familiales du périmètre irrigué de l’Office du Niger au Mali: évolutions et perspectives. Cah Agric 15:562–569Google Scholar
  9. Crozat Y, Chitapong P (1988) The on-farm agronomical survey: a tool for grading limiting factors of a crop and designing new technologies. In: Trébuil G (ed) Farming systems research and development in Thailand. Illustrated methodological considerations and recent advances. GRET/Prince of Songkla University, France/Thailand, pp 87–110Google Scholar
  10. Dingkuhn M, Le Gal P-Y (1996) Effect of drainage date on yield and dry matter partitioning in irrigated rice. Field Crops Res 46:117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dingkuhn M, Schnier HF, De Datta SK et al (1990) Nitrogen fertilization of direct-seeded flooded vs. transplanted rice: II. Interactions among canopy properties. Crop Sci 30:1284–1292. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gravois KA, Helms RS (1992) Path analysis of rice yield and yield components as affected by seeding rate. Agron J 84:1–4. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jamin J-Y, Berete O, Sanogo MK (1992) Intensification de la riziculture à Niono au Mali. In: Bosc PM, Dollé V, Garin P, Yung JM (eds) Le développement agricole au Sahel. Tome III : Terrains et innovations. Cirad, Montpellier, pp 153–185Google Scholar
  14. Landais É, Deffontaines J-P, Benoit M (1988) Les pratiques des agriculteurs point de vue sur un courant nouveau de la recherche agronomique. Etudes Rurales 109:125–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mairura FS, Mugendi DN, Mwanje JI, Ramisch JJ, Mbugua PK, Chianu JN (2007) Integrating scientific and farmers’ evaluation of soil quality indicators in Central Kenya. Geoderma 139:134–143. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Makowski D, Tichit M, Guichard L, van Keulen H, Beaudoin N (2009) Measuring the accuracy of agro-environmental indicators. J Environ Manag 90:S139–S146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Matsushima S (1966) Crop science in rice. Theory of yield determination and its application. Fuji Publishing Co, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  18. Murage EW, Karanja NK, Smithson PC, Woomer PL (2000) Diagnostic indicators of soil quality in productive and non-productive smallholders’ fields of Kenya’s Central Highlands. Agric Ecosyst Environ 79:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ottis BV, Talbert RE (2005) Rice yield components as affected by cultivar and seeding rate. Agron J 97:1622–1625. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Poussin J-C, Wopereis MCS, Debouzie D, Maeght J-L (2003) Determinants of irrigated rice yield in the Senegal River valley. Eur J Agron 19:341–356. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tanaka A, Saito K, Azoma K, Kobayashi K (2013) Factors affecting variation in farm yields of irrigated lowland rice in southern-central Benin. Eur J Agron 44:46–53. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Toffolini Q, Jeuffroy M-H, Prost L (2016) Indicators used by farmers to design agricultural systems: a survey. Agron Sustain Dev 36:1–14. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wopereis MCS, Donovan C, Nebie B et al (1999) Soil fertility management in irrigated rice systems in the Sahel and Savanna regions of West Africa: Part I Agronomic analysis. Field Crops Res 61:125–145. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Yegbemey RN, Yabi JA, Dossa CSG, Bauer S (2014) Novel participatory indicators of sustainability reveal weaknesses of maize cropping in Benin. Agron Sustain Dev 34:909–920. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Yoshida S (1981) Fundamentals of rice crop science. Int. Rice Res. Inst, Los BanosGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© INRA and Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut d’Economie RuraleBamakoMali
  2. 2.Nyeta ConseilsNionoMali
  3. 3.CIRAD UMR G-eau, Univ. MontpellierMontpellierFrance
  4. 4.IRD UMR G-eau, Univ. MontpellierMontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations