6th World Congress on Conservation Agriculture Winnipeg ......Bush bean (cv-MKB 1), Long bean...

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)


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)


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)


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Table 5: Nitrogen uptake of rice as affected by

N fertilizer and legume residue

Nitrogen

(g/m2)



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


Table 5: (cont’d) N uptake of rice as affected

by N fertilizer and legume residue

Nitrogen

(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


Table 5: (cont’d) N uptake of rice as affected

by N fertilizer and legume residue

Nitrogen

(g/m2)



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


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


Table 6: (cont’d) NRE of rice as affected by N


Nitrogen

(g/m2)

NRE (%)


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


Table 6: (cont’d) NRE of rice as affected by N


Nitrogen

(g/m2)

NRE (%)


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


Table 7. Nitrogen Agronomic Efficiency (NAE) of rice

as affected by N fertilizer and legume residue

Nitrogen

(g/m2)

NAE (g g-1)


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


Table 7. (cont’d) NAE of rice as affected by N fertilizer

and legume residue

Nitrogen

(g/m2)

NAE (g g-1)


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


Table 7. (cont’d) Nitrogen Agronomic Efficiency of rice

as affected by N fertilizer and legume residue

Nitrogen

(g/m2)

NAE (g g-1)


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


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)


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 %


Table 8. (cont’d) Grain yield of rice as affected by

nitrogen fertilizer and legume residue

Nitrogen

(g/m2)

Grain yield (g/m2)


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 %


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

Thank you

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3f/Pink_carnation_crop_two.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3f/Pink_carnation_crop_two.jpg

6th World Congress on Conservation Agriculture Winnipeg ......Bush bean (cv-MKB 1), Long bean...

Documents

Transcript of 6th World Congress on Conservation Agriculture Winnipeg ......Bush bean (cv-MKB 1), Long bean...