Post on 24-Jan-2021
6th World Congress on Conservation Agriculture
Winnipeg Convention Centre
June 22 – June 25, 2014
Winnipeg, Manitoba
Canada
Motior Rahman
Institute of Biological Sciences
Faculty of Science
University of Malaya
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
7/10/2014
Nitrogen Recovery and Agronomic Efficiency of
Rice under Tropical Conditions as Affected by
Nitrogen Fertilizer and Legume Crop Rotation
Background of the Research
Cultivable area in Malaysia - 14.2 million ha
5.8 million ha rubber and oil palm
1.8 million ha mainly rice and other minor crops
Rice - > 3 billion people in the world's population
(Amane, 2011)
Soil N + BNF (microbial populations) is one of the
principal sources of N for rice production
Indigenous soil N supply unless it is restored by BNF
(Fageria et al., 2005)
Nitrogen - major constraint and contributing factor
for low productivity and food insecurity in most
rice-based cropping systems in Asia
(Haefele et al., 2008)
Background of the Research
Environmental hazard and Economic loses-
Imbalanced rates and injudicious methods of
fertilizer application can lead to poor N
efficiency
(Stevens et al., 2005)
Reduce the use of chemical fertilizer
Maintenance of native soil N resource
Improvement of N output from plant sources
(Thuy et al., 2008)
Background of the Research
NUE of crops
Indigenous soil N + N through legume in BNF
Potential N enrichment in soil
Total N output in a rice based cropping system
(Dabney et al., 2001)
Leguminous green manures play a significant
role in conserving NO3
(Singh et al., 2005)
Background of the Research
Legume plant
Microbial activity, organic N, soil texture
N benefits vary among different legume systems
(Kumar and Goh, 2000)
Soil N loss - effective legume crops, sufficient BNF
input, Soil N improved
(Cazzato et al., 2012)
Rice in Malaysia
Irrigated HYV rice - import 4.2 million tons fertilizers
> 3.0 billion US$ (RM 9.2 billion) (Ali 2009; Wan, 2004)
Two rice/year, 5 crops in a 2 year period, no practice
of crop rotation with legumes (Khairuddin, 2002)
Intensive use of chemical fertilizers, soil fertility
deterioration, threatens ecosystem
Amendment of soil quality by crop residues,
productivity of rice-based cropping system
Rice in Malaysia
Agro-ecologically healthier
Sustainable food production
Integrated approach of rice cultivation
Legume vegetable and intercropping practices
Crop rotation, organic farming
Minimize the dependence on fertilizers
(Faridah, 2001; Khairuddin, 2002)
Microbial population’s activity in the soil
Sustain rice productivity, soil organic matter
Soil quality, provides plant nutrients upon
mineralization and eventually improves soil
properties
(Dabney et al., 2001)
Legume crops in rotation with rice -
protect degradation of soil fertility,
improve soil structure, water holding capacity,
greater productivity, higher income
minimizing production risk and ensuring long-
term sustainability and greener environment
(Chu et al., 2004; Motior et al., 2011)
Vegetables in South East Asia
Bush bean, long bean, sprouted mung bean seed
and winged bean
N supplement to rice crop rotation systems
tropical legumes alone or combination
with inorganic N fertilizers
Soil health and productivity of rice crop
No systematic research
Consequence of N in legume
Soil N dynamics
Yield and N uptake
Following rice crop
Objectives
To assess the addition of legume residues to
plant nitrogen uptake, nitrogen agronomic
efficiency and nitrogen recovery efficiency
To determine the amount of fertilizer N
essential for optimizing rice yield when
legumes are enclose in the system
Materials and Methods
Experiments conducted –
University of Malaya
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
2010 and 2011
Soil type: Clay loam
Soil chemical properties:
pH 6.55±0.20 (1:5 w/v water)
CEC 15 (cmolc kg-1 soil),
Organic C 1.75±0.48 %
Total N 0.18±0.04 %
NH4-N 6.37±1.25 (mg 100-1 g soil
Exch. K2O 14.9±9.06 (mg 100-1 g soil).
Pot size (h 36 cm x d 54 cm = SA 0.84 m2)
Crop used:
Bush bean (cv-MKB 1), Long bean (cv-MKP 5)
Mung bean (cv. local), Winged bean (cv. local)
Corn (N2 non-fixing reference plant)
Rice (HYV)
Design – CRD
Replication - four
Legumes and corn – 1st and 3rd crop
Rice - 2nd and 4th crop
1st year
N rates for legumes - 0, 2, 4 and 6 g N m-2
N rates for rice & corn - 0, 4, 8 and 12 g N m-2
2nd year
No N fertilizer or other chemical fertilizers
To estimate the enduring effect of legume residues for
the next crop.
Empty 16 pots used for rice - fallow crop rotation
Legumes, corn planted – March 1st week, 2010 & 2011
Legume crops and corn - harvested at 70 DAE
Rice (14 d old seedlings) - transplanted July 2nd week
Rice fertilized – 1/3 before transplanting, 1/3 at
tillering and 1/3 at panicle primordial
initiation stages
Rice harvest – 2nd week of November for both years
Legume plants were harvested and fragmented into
small pieces and spread into the pots and mixed to a
depth of about 8-10 cm into soil with mulching and
followed by watering and the pot was left stagnant for
30 days to prepare for rice transplanting
Determined -
Total dry matter and grain yield
Total N concentration
Micro-Kjeldahl digestion method
Estimation of BNF
(IAEA, 2001; Peoples et al., 2002)
% Ndff NF + % Ndfs NF = 100 %
% Ndff F + % Ndfs F + % Ndfa F = 100 %
% Ndfa = 100 – (% Ndff F + % Ndfs F)
[(Legume N – ReferenceN)]
% Ndfa = 100 -----------------------------------------
(Legume N)
N-efficiency parameters calculated as-
(Cassman et al., 2002; Zuliang et al., 2012)
grain yield at Nx – grain yield at N0 NAE (g g-1 ) = -------------------------------------------------
applied N at Nx
N uptake at Nx – N uptake at N0
NRE (%) = ------------------------------------------
applied at Nx
Data were analyzed following ANOVA
Treatment means were compared based on the LSD test at the 0.05 probability level.
Results
and
Discussion
Table 1: Nitrogen uptake of bush bean and
long bean
Nitrogen
(g/m2)
Nitrogen uptake (g/m2)
Bush bean Long bean
2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011
0 0 5.0 c 4.7 c 4.7 d 4.6 c
2 0 5.3 b 5.1 b 5.0 c 4.8 c
4 0 5.7 a 5.3 b 5.4 b 5.1 b
6 0 5.9 a 5.6 a 5.7 a 5.4 a
Same letters are not significantly different for each treatment means (P<0.05)
Table 1: (cont’d) N uptake of mung bean and
winged bean
Nitrogen
(g/m2)
Nitrogen uptake (g/m2)
Mung bean Winged bean
2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011
0 0 4.6 c 4.5 d 6.2 b 5.6 b
2 0 5.0 b 4.8 c 6.5 ab 6.3 a
4 0 5.2 b 5.1 b 6.7 a 6.6 a
6 0 5.5 a 5.3 a 6.8 a 6.9 a
Same letters are not significantly different for each treatment means (P<0.05)
Table 2: Nitrogen fixation (%) of bush bean
and long bean
Bush bean Long bean
2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011
0 0 29.4 a 28.8 a 24.4 a 25.1 a
2 0 19.2 b 22.2 b 14.2 b 16.8 b
4 0 16.5 c 16.1 c 11.9 c 12.5 c
6 0 9.9 d 13.2 d 5.8 d 9.5 d
Same letters are not significantly different for each treatment means (P<0.05)
Table 2: (cont’d) Nitrogen fixation (%) of mung
bean and winged bean
Nitrogen (g/m2) Mung bean Winged bean
2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011
0 0 29.4 a 28.8 a 24.4 a 25.1 a
2 0 19.2 b 22.2 b 14.2 b 16.8 b
4 0 16.5 c 16.1 c 11.9 c 12.5 c
6 0 9.9 d 13.2 d 5.8 d 9.5 d
Same letters are not significantly different for each treatment means (P<0.05)
Table 3: Nitrogen recovery efficiency (%) of
bush bean and long bean
Nitrogen (g/m2) Bush bean Long bean
2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011
0 0 0.0 c 0.0 c 0.0 c 0.0 c
2 0 14.0 b 18.0 a 15.0 b 13.0 b
4 0 16.3 a 15.3 b 17.0 a 15.5 a
6 0 14.8 b 14.8 b 15.7 b 14.8 a
Same letters are not significantly different for each treatment means (P<0.05)
Table 3: (cont’d) Nitrogen recovery efficiency
of mung bean and winged bean
Nitrogen
(g/m2)
Nitrogen recovery efficiency (%)
Mung bean Winged bean
2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011
0 0 0.0 c 0.0 d 0.0 d 0.0 d
2 0 19.5 a 19.5 a 15.5 a 29.0 a
4 0 16.5 b 16.0 b 14.5 b 20.5 b
6 0 15.7 b 15.0 c 11.2 c 19.5 c
Same letters are not significantly different for each treatment means (P<0.05)
Table 4: Dry matter yield of rice as affected by N
fertilizer and legume residue
Nitrogen
(g/m2)
Dry matter yield (g/m2)
Rice-Bush bean Rice-Long bean
2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011
0 0 986 c 922 c 949 c 929 c
4 0 1057 b 994 b 1069 b 1038 b
8 0 1075 ab 1075 a 1136 ab 1083 a
12 0 1124 a 1084 a 1138 a 1103 a
Same letters are not significantly different for each treatment means (P<0.05)
Table 4: (cont’d) Dry matter yield of rice as affected by
N fertilizer and legume residue
Nitrogen
(g/m2)
Dry matter yield (g/m2)
Rice-corn Rice-fallow
2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011
0 0 906 d 873 d 941 c 906 c
4 0 932 c 906 c 1065 b 994 b
8 0 1026 b 961 b 1137 a 1042 a
12 0 1059 a 1007 a 1127 a 1059 a
Same letters are not significantly different for each treatment means (P<0.05)
Table 4: (cont’d) Dry matter yield of rice as
affected by N fertilizer and L. residue
Nitrogen
(g/m2)Dry matter yield (g/m2)
Rice- Mung bean Rice-Winged bean
2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011
0 0 953 c 912 c 1155 b 1101 b
4 0 1066 b 987 b 1262 a 1212 a
8 0 1129 a 1072 a 1283 a 1244 a
12 0 1132 a 1078 a 1290 a 1254 a
Same letters are not significantly different for each treatment means (P<0.05)
Table 5: Nitrogen uptake of rice as affected by
N fertilizer and legume residue
Nitrogen
(g/m2)
Nitrogen uptake (g/m2)
Rice-Bush bean Rice-Long bean
2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011
0 0 9.4 d 8.5 c 9.3 c 8.5 c
4 0 10.4 c 9.5 b 10.4 b 9.5 b
8 0 11.0 b 10.7 a 11.5 a 10.3 a
12 0 11.6 a 10.9 a 11.6 a 10.8 a
Same letters are not significantly different for each treatment means (P<0.05)
Table 5: (cont’d) N uptake of rice as affected
by N fertilizer and legume residue
Nitrogen
(g/m2)
Nitrogen uptake (g/m2)
Rice-Mung bean Rice-Winged bean
2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011
0 0 9.1 c 8.4 c 12.1 b 11.3 b
4 0 10.2 b 9.4 b 13.4 a 12.5 a
8 0 11.4 a 10.7 a 13.7 a 12.8 a
12 0 11.5 a 10.8 a 13.9 a 12.9 a
Same letters are not significantly different for each treatment means (P<0.05)
Table 5: (cont’d) N uptake of rice as affected
by N fertilizer and legume residue
Nitrogen
(g/m2)
Nitrogen uptake (g/m2)
Rice-corn Rice-fallow
2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011
0 0 7.1 d 6.8 d 7.5 c 7.1 d
4 0 7.6 c 7.2 c 8.5 b 7.9 c
8 0 8.4 b 7.7 b 9.5 a 8.4 b
12 0 8.9 a 8.3 a 9.7 a 8.7 a
Same letters are not significantly different for each treatment means (P<0.05)
Table 6: NRE of rice as affected by N fertilizer
and legume residue
Nitrogen
(g/m2)
NRE (%)Rice-Bush bean Rice-Long bean
2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011
0 0 0.0 c 0.0 d 0.0 c 0.0 d
4 0 28.8 a 27.5 a 28.8 a 27.5 a
8 0 29.5 a 23.8 b 29.4 a 23.8 b
12 0 19.6 b 20.0 c 19.6 b 20.0 c
Same letters are not significantly different for each treatment means (P<0.05)
Table 6: (cont’d) NRE of rice as affected by N
fertilizer and legume residue
Nitrogen
(g/m2)
NRE (%)
Rice-Mung bean Rice-Winged bean
2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011
0 0 0.0 c 0.0 d 0.0 d 0.0 d
4 0 27.5 a 25.0 b 32.5 a 30.0 a
8 0 28.8 a 28.8 a 20.0 b 18.8 b
12 0 20.0 b 20.0 c 15.0 c 13.3 c
Same letters are not significantly different for each treatment means (P<0.05)
Table 6: (cont’d) NRE of rice as affected by N
fertilizer and legume residue
Nitrogen
(g/m2)
NRE (%)
Rice-corn Rice-fallow
2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011
0 0 0.0 c 0.0 c 0.0 c 0.0 d
4 0 10.0 b 9.8 b 25.5 a 20.0 a
8 0 16.3 a 11.1 a 25.0 a 16.3 b
12 0 15.0 a 12.4 a 18.3 b 13.3 c
Same letters are not significantly different for each treatment means (P<0.05)
Table 7. Nitrogen Agronomic Efficiency (NAE) of rice
as affected by N fertilizer and legume residue
Nitrogen
(g/m2)
NAE (g g-1)
Rice-Bush bean Rice-Long bean
2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011
0 0 0.0 d 0.0 d 0.0 d 0.0 c
4 0 13.0 a 12.5 a 21.2 a 17.1 a
8 0 10.7 b 9.7 b 15.1 b 11.4 b
12 0 7.4 c 6.5 c 12.8 c 11.1 b
Same letters are not significantly different for each treatment means (P<0.05)
Table 7. (cont’d) NAE of rice as affected by N fertilizer
and legume residue
Nitrogen
(g/m2)
NAE (g g-1)
Rice-Mung bean Rice-Winged bean
2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011
0 0 0.0 d 0.0 d 0.0 d 0.0 d
4 0 14.8 a 12.9 a 26.9 a 23.6 a
8 0 12.6 b 11.4 b 16.3 b 14.7 b
12 0 8.3 c 7.8 c 12.2 c 12.5 c
Same letters are not significantly different for each treatment means (P<0.05)
Table 7. (cont’d) Nitrogen Agronomic Efficiency of rice
as affected by N fertilizer and legume residue
Nitrogen
(g/m2)
NAE (g g-1)
Rice-corn Rice-fallow
2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011
0 0 0.0 c 0.0 c 0.0 0.0 d
4 0 14.7 a 16.3 a 21.2 a 13.8 b
8 0 15.5 a 14.3 b 18.7 b 15.1 a
12 0 13.3 b 12.2 b 15.2 c 11.4 c
Same letters are not significantly different for each treatment means (P<0.05)
Table 8. Grain Yield of rice as affected by N fertilizer
and legume residue
Nitrogen
(g/m2)
Grain yield (g/m2)Rice-Bush bean Rice-Long bean
2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011
0 0424.5 c
(-21)
358.3 c
(-33)
416.9 c
(-22)
403.9 c
(-25)
4 0495.1 b
(-7)
439.7 b
(-18)
501.6 b
(-6)
472.3 b
(-12)
8 0547.2 a
(+2)
472.3 ab
(-12)
537.5 a
(+1)
495.1 ab
(-7)
12 0553.7 a
(+4)
521.2 a
(-2)
570.0 a
(+7)
537.5 a
(+1)Same letters are not significantly different for each treatment means (P<0.05)*Parenthesis values denotes yield increase (+) or decrease (-) in %
values calculate based on rice after fallow with 8 g N m-2 (100%)
Table 8. (cont’d) Grain yield of rice as affected by
nitrogen fertilizer and legume residue
Nitrogen
(g/m2)
Grain Yield (g/m2)
Rice-Mung bean Rice-Winged bean
2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011
0 0407.2 c
(-24)
395.7 c
(-26)
537.5 b
(+1)
508.1 b
(-5)
4 0495.1 b
(-7)
449.2 b
(-16)
645.0 a
(+21)
602.6 a
(+13)
8 0540.0 a
(+1)
488.7 a
(-8)
667.8 a
(+25)
625.4 a
(+17)
12 0565.3 a
(+6)
521.2 a
(-2)
684.0 a
(+28)
658.0 a
(+23)
Same letters are not significantly different for each treatment means (P<0.05)*Parenthesis values denotes yield increase (+) or decrease (-) in %
values calculate based on rice after fallow with 8 g N m-2 (100%)
Table 8. (cont’d) Grain yield of rice as affected by
nitrogen fertilizer and legume residue
Nitrogen
(g/m2)
Grain yield (g/m2)
Rice-corn Rice-fallow
2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011
0 0348.5 d
(-35)
293.2 d
(-45)
371.3 c
(-31)
342.0 c
(-36)
4 0407.2 c
(-24)
358.3 c
(-33)
488.6 b
(-8)
423.5 b
(-21)
8 0472.3 b
(-12)
407.2 b
(-24)
*534.2 a
(100)
472.3 a
(-12)
12 0508.1 a
(-5)
439.7 a
(-18)
553.7 a
(+4)
504.9 a
(-5)Same letters are not significantly different for each treatment means (P<0.05)*Parenthesis values denotes yield increase (+) or decrease (-) in %
values calculate based on rice after fallow with 8 g N m-2 (100%)
Conclusions
Rice rotation with legume crops play a significant
role in the improvement of rice grain yield
Higher levels of yield can be sustained by compatible
and proper management of residues and N fertilizer
Incorporation of long bean plant require 4 g N m-2 and
can be an alternative to the sole use of N fertilizer
Winged bean is capable of producing greater amount
of biomass and providing high quantities of total N,
in addition to fixing substantial quantities of N
Conclusions
Without significant loss of yield level, winged bean
plant residue incorporation can be an alternative
source to N fertilizer for sustainable rice yield
Winged bean plant residues are able to provide
sufficient N to the soil for the rice crop and afford an
advantage equivalent to that of 4 to 8 g fertilizer N m-2,
respectively
Amongst the tested legumes, winged bean showed
the greatest potential while the other legumes can
also be used as a substitute or supplement in place of
chemical or inorganic N fertilizers