ReviewHeliyon2025
Evaluating the effects of Climate Smart Agricultural (CSA) practices on productivity, adaptation, and mitigation indicators in Ethiopia: A meta-analysis approach.
Review in Heliyon, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Climate-Resilient Agriculture Practices for Enhancing Resilient Practices and Food Systems in Dry Regions.Plant-environment interactions (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2025-12-29Concerns/Issues about Referencing/Attributions · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Objections by Author(s) · Unreliable Results and/or Conclusions ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Climate-smart agricultural (CSA) practices have been adopted in various agroecological zones in Ethiopia to enhance productivity, improve resilience to climate change, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions through carbon sequestration. However, the overall impact of different CSA practices on productivity, adaptation, and mitigation metrics has not been exhaustively evaluated. The study employed a meta-analysis approach based on data from 220 peer-reviewed articles to assess the effects of commonly used CSA practices on these indicators across Ethiopia's diverse agroecological regions. The analysis identified over 20 CSA practices, with most-except soil bunds, level Fanya juu, and deficit irrigation-showing positive effects on productivity, peaking with drip irrigation (effect size of 2.15). Almost all practices also effectively reduced runoff and soil erosion, particularly crop residue mulching, which had a remarkable effect size of 2.95. Additionally, the findings indicated that various CSA practices enhanced soil organic matter and carbon stocks. Water management practices, especially drip and deficit irrigation, demonstrated significantly higher water productivity than traditional flood irrigation, with an effect size of up to 2.6. This water use efficiency suggests that these methods could free up substantial water resources for irrigating additional land, thus boosting crop production in water-scarce areas. However, the analysis revealed a negative effect size of up to -0.74 for income derived from drip irrigation, primarily due to the high costs of the necessary equipment. This highlights the need for reforms in duty and tax exemptions to improve farmers' profitability from drip irrigation systems. Overall, this meta-analysis assesses the impact of various CSA practices on key performance indicators productivity, adaptation, and mitigation-providing insights that can guide the packaging and implementation of the most effective CSA strategies across Ethiopia's agroecological zones.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.