Presentation

June, 3rd, 2010
Soil fertility and crop
management
A. Oswald, J. Sanchez, G. Quispe, M. Rojas, P. Calvo, J. Caycho
Introduction
Integración
socioeconómica
MIE
Suelo
Semillas
MIP
Integración de componentes
Introduction
Goals:
Contribute to the development of integrative research
approaches in division 4 and CIP;
Establish soil fertility and cropping systems management as
a component of ICM in division 4 ;
Contribute to an intensification of collaborative activities
among divisions and partner programs;
Support NARES in capacity building and soil fertility
research;
Extent activities to other CIP-regions;
Integrative Research
Contribute to the development of integrative research
approaches in division 4;
- time consuming task;
- depending on the effort and attitude of scientists
involved;
- requires leadership and commitment;
- eventually removed from the priority activities;
Collaborative activities
Contribute to an intensification of collaborative activities among
divisions and partner programs;
- collaborative activities division 3 and 5;
- Papa Andina, ALTAGRO, Urban Harvest, CONDESAN;
With other institutions – NARS, NGOs etc.;
Support capacity strengthening
Support NARES in capacity building and soil fertility research;
- INIA, INIAP - PROINPA;
- CEDEPAS, YANAPAI
conclusions:
need for basic training and standardization
- design, implementation, evaluation and statistical analysis;
- time series
- locations
participatory approaches;
development of training approaches;
feed-back – robustness of methods and technologies – scaling out
Soil fertility & crop management research
Establish soil fertility and cropping systems management as a component of ICM in
division 4;
Soil fertility and fertilizer use
¾ organic amendments
¾ manure, compost, biol
¾ inorganic amendments
¾ fertilizer use, types, efficiency
Crop management
¾ minimum tillage and use of mulch
¾ in the Andes
¾ in China
¾ traditional potato production technologies
¾ development of a concept of sustainable agricultural systems and evaluation of
technologies
Biological amendments
¾ PGPR
¾ crop production and protection
¾ seed production
¾ Mycorrhiza
¾ crop production
Soil fertility and fertilizer use
I.
Present situation
Location
% of farmers
appl. fertilizer
N in kg
ha-1
P in kg
ha-1
K in kg
ha-1
10.0
Aymara
n=20
100
160 ± 46
209 ± 44
186 ± 53
7.5
26.6
26 ± 18*
9±7
22 ± 16
27.5
39.3
Choppcas
n=25
22
2
3
12.5
21.3
97
195 ± 110
144 ± 61
117 ± 72
4
15.0
2.7
Marcavalle
n=35
5
2.5
--
Aramachay
n=33
100
133 ± 77
156 ± 113
107 ± 41
Duration of fallow
period in years
Altiplano
Aramachay
0
35.0
1
Altiplano
n=214
21
55 ± 45*
0
manure in kg
ha-1
OM* in kg
ha-1
N in kg
ha-1
P in kg
ha-1
K in kg ha-1
Location
Average area
cultivated with
potato in ha
Aymara n=20
1.50 ± 0.47
4070 ± 1132
1741 ± 609
76 ± 23
44 ± 12
107 ± 30
Choppcas
n=25
0.74 ± 0.58
3637 ± 3110
1642 ± 1525
58 ± 52
35 ± 32
59 ± 49
Marcavalle
n=35
0.45 ± 0.33
4240 ± 2370
2014 ± 1012
85 ± 41
42 ± 34
47 ± 45
Aramachay
n=50
0.46 ± 0.25
10076 ± 6611
3869 ± 2539
147 ± 83
118 ± 67
374 ± 212
Altiplano
n=214
0.55 ± 0.55
5365 ± 2455
2441 ± 1117
86 ± 39
45 ± 21
96 ± 44
0
Soil fertility management
Relation of OM applications and tuber yield in
Choppcas and the Altiplano
Organic matter in kg/ha
O rg a n ic m atter in kg /h a
Relation of OM applications and tuber yield in
Aramachay and Aymara
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
50000
0
10000
Tuber yield in kg/ha
200
100
Relation of N and OM applications in
Aramachay and Aymara
300
N fertilizer in kg/ha
N fertilizer in kg/ha
y = -0.0027x + 209.32
2
R = 0.287*
200
100
y = 0.0224x + 75.99
2
R = 0.316*
0
0
10000
20000
30000
Tuber yield in kg/ha
30000
Tuber yield in kg/ha
Relation of N applications and tuber yield in
Aramachay and Aymara
300
20000
40000
50000
0
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
Organic matter in kg/ha
5,000
6,000
Input
Aymara
Aramachay
Output
- 21 t/ha
Input
Output
Choppcas
- 27 t/ha
Input
Output
Altiplano
- 13 t/ha
Input
- 11 t/ha
Output
0
Fertilizer N
100
200
Manure N (50%)
300
Soil N
400
500
Potato N
N input – output relationship in farmers‘ fields of communities in the Central Andes
Aymara
Input
Output
Aramachay
Input
Output
Choppcas
Input
Output
Altiplano
Input
Output
0
100
Fertilizer N
Potato N
200
300
Manure N
Barley N
400
500
600
Soil N
Oats N
N input – output relationship in farmers‘ fields of communities in the Central Andes
Soil fertility and fertilizer use
I. Organic amendments
-
home made
abundant availability
produced based on robust, easy processes
-
nutrient source
increase nutrient use efficiency
improve plant recovery after stress events
Organic amendments – Biol / manure tea
Ingredientes
Agua (l)
Estierco (kg) 2
Melaza (kg)
Leguminosa (kg)
Leche (l)
Ceniza (kg)
Levadura (kg)
Nitrógeno (kg)
Fósforo (kg)
Capacidad en l
1
Biodigestores (tratamientos)
1
2
31
90
90
90
15+5
0+20
15+5
2.5
1
1.5
0.5
0.25
4
90
15+5
2.5
5
90
15+5
2.5
6
90
15+5
2.5
1.5
0.5
0.25
7
90
0+20
2.5
1
1.5
0.5
0.25
8
90
0+20
5
1
9
90
0+20
5
1
0.25
1
0.25
0.9
0.9
120
120
120
120
120
0.9
120
120
120
= tratamientos 3 y 12 tienen los mismos ingredientes, pero tratamiento 12 fue removido 2 veces al día;
120
10
90
0+20
5
1
0.9
0.9
120
0.5
121
90
15+5
2.5
1
1.5
0.5
0.25
120
120
11
90
15+15
5
2
3
Organic amendments – Biol / manure tea
pH
18 dias
36 dias
58 dias
72 dias
92 dias
107 dias
120 dias
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Tratamientos
9
10
11
Peso fresco promedio
(g/maceta)
Básicos
8.2
Ácidos
12.0
Fertilizante foliar (20-20-20)
14.3
Sin aplicación
9.8
12
Figura 1: Lectura de pH de los Bioles (7 noviembre 2008 - 9 marzo
2009)
Basicos
Grupos
Acidos
Basicos
Acidos
6000.00
120.00
5000.00
100.00
mg/L
mg/L
4000.00
3000.00
2000.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
1000.00
0.00
0.00
N
P
K
Ca
Macroelementos
Mg
Na
Cu
Zn
Mn
Microelementos
Fe
B
Organic amendments – compost
50
g/planta
40
30
20
10
0
Control Compost-llama Compost-cow Compost-chicken
10 g/maceta
20g/maceta
Field trial
15
12
9
6
3
ur
e
12
012
012
Ll
0
am
a
1:
1
f
Ll
am
a
2:
1
f
Ll
am
a
2:
1
Co
w
1:
1
f
Co
w
2:
1
f
Co
w
2:
Ch
1
ic
ke
n
1:
1
Ch
f
ic
ke
n
2:
1
Ch
f
ic
ke
n
2:
1
NP
K
t/h
a
m
an
Co
n
tr
ol
0
10
Compost:
-C/N – 25:1
-pathogen free
-low or no ammonium
-activates soil life
-slow release of nutrients
-improves soil structure –
aeration, moisture holding
capacity, CEC
Pot trial
Soil fertility and fertilizer use
Rendimiento comercial y total en t/ha
30
t/ha
8
25
6
20
4
15
10
2
5
0
0
Control
Marcavalle
Ñuñunhuayo
8 t/ha
16 t/ha
24 t/ha
80 N
Tingo
160N
8t/ha + 8t/ha +
80 N
160 N
Soil fertility and fertilizer use
20
15
10
5
0
Huamantanga
Camotillo
Peruanita
Yana Huayro
16t manure
24t manure
NPK 80-100-100
NPK 160-100-100
Crop management
I.
Minimum tillage
I.
Andes
Barbecho
Chaqmeo
Chiwa
Crop management
I.
Minimum tillage
I.
Andes
20
15
10
5
organic
3755m asl
inorganic
4102m asl
4144m asl
20
15
10
5
Barbecho
3755m asl
Oswald et al. 2009. The complexity of simple tillage systems. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 147, 399-410
Chacmeo
4102m asl
Chiwa
4144m asl
II. Minimum tillage - China
Potentials and opportunities
¾
¾
¾
Jan
new short duration rice varieties increase winter fallow period;
temperatures adequate for potato production;
winter potato intensifies land-use-system;
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
winter potato
Oct
Nov
Dec
winter potato
early rice
late rice
spring potato
summer rice
rapeseed, vetch
barley, wheat
rapeseed, vetch
barley,
Oswald et al. 2009. Minimum tillage systems with potato in winter cropping regions of subtropical China. Tropentag – Biophysical and socio-economic frame conditions for
sustainable management of natural resources. 06-08.10.2009, Hamburg, Germany
Winter potato cropping system
¾
¾
¾
farmers’ innovation;
often as minimum tillage system on heavy rice soils;
several types according to climatic or soil conditions;
Soil fertility and fertilizer use
Biological amendments
-
Plant Growth Promoting Bacteria - PGPR
Mycorrhiza
-
PGPR
-
Laboratory tests
Greenhouse experiments
Field trials
Pot trials
Canchan
Yungay
Control
control
control
B1
C2
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
C1
C2
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
Tuber Plant
Variedad
Canchan
B6
B7
B8
0
C1
C2
C2
B9
B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 B16
Tuber
Plant
Oswald et al., 2010 Evaluating soil rhizobacteria for their ability to enhance plant growth and tuber yield of potato. Annals of Applied Biology (in press).
Crop diversity
120
10 semanas
11 semanas
100
80
g/plant
60
40
Control
8 semanas
Azo16M2
Act16M2
11 semanas
20
Control
0
Acelga
Bac17M9
Rabanito
Control
Bac 22
Espinaca
Act 16M2
Maiz
Azo 16M2
- all crops showed increments in fresh and dry matter
- plant weight increased between 40% - 140%
Bac17M9
Azo16M2
Act16M2
PGPR use in different production systems
I. Aeroponics
Variety Peruanita with PGPR
1.00E+10
Variety Peruanita without PGPR
Planting
60 days
1.00E+08
60 days
30 days
1.00E+06
cfu
60 days
¾
¾
1.00E+04
¾
1.00E+02
1.00E+00
Inocul.
Water
Water
Total bacteria
Water Canchan Inocul.
Bacillus
Azotobacter
Noninoc.
Tubers production from
inoculated plants
better growth of inoculated plants;
the growth period of inoculated plants
was extended by up to 30 days;
adequate bacteria populations could be
maintained in the irrigation water and on
potato roots;
Aeroponics
(20)
100
500
(6)
400
80
(78)
(63)
(83)
60
(-14)
(42)
(38)
300
(4)
40
20
(-12)
(82)
(72)
(-1)
(-5)
200
(126)
(133)
100 (665)
(315)
0
0
Des
Revo
Cruza
Conde
Unica
Capiro
Perri
Yun
Can
Des
Number of tubers/plant
Revo
Cruza
Conde
Unica
Capiro
Perri
Yun
Can
Tuber yield in g/plant
8
¾
6
4
¾
2
0
Des
Revo
Cruza
Conde
Unica
Capiro
Mean tuber weight in g
with bacteria without bacteria
Perri
Yun
Can
inoculated plants produce more
tubers and often greater tuber
weights;
tuber size is similar or greater
with non-inoculated plants
Farmers’ greenhouse
Yields in kg/m2 of horticultural crops in 3 greenhouses in Puno, Peru
Location
Palermo
Yacari 1
control
A1-15/06
Chard
3.28
+ 60%
4.69
+ 41%
4.88
+ 60%
Spinach
3.63
+ 14%
3.44
+ 2%
3.88
+ 29%
Beetroot
4.38
+ 3%
4.69
+ 3%
7.81
- 20%
Radish
--
--
4.38
- 13%
5.31
- 29%
Pumkin
--
--
1.62
+ 42%
--
--
Bacteria
control
B1-22/06
Yacari 2
control
A3-30/06
Farmers’ fields – horticultural crops
60
45
30
15
Yield increase of coriander
or beetroot inoculated with
PGPR strains over control
without bacteria at farmers’
fields in Huachipa, Lima.
0
-15
-30
A1-22/06 A1-17/06 B1-22/06 B1-27/06 A3-25/06 A3-27/06
Coriander
Beetroot
Field trials with potato
¾ Field evaluation: cultivars, agro-ecologíes, crops
¾ Trials implemented: Lima (0 m asl), Huancayo (3,300m asl);
Aymara (3,900m asl), Puno (3,900m asl)
¾ Varieties:
Única, Revolución, Yungay, Amarillis,
Ccompis, Amarillo del Centro, Andina,
Queccorani
¾ Crops:
potato and maize
¾ 2007 – 2009 14 trials with and potato and 1 trial with maize
¾ 64 strains used:
21 Bacillus, 8 Azospirillum,13 Azotobacter,
8 Pseudomonas, 14 Actinomycetes
¾ 13 positive strains:
4 Bacillus
1 Azospirillum
4 Azotobacter
3 Actinomycetes
1 Pseudomonas
19%
13%
31%
21%
13%
Results of fields trials 2006-2009
Strain
A1-30/06 Actinomycetes
A1-30/08
A1-45/08
A2-18/08 Azospirillum
A3-15/06 Azotobacter
A3-16/08
A3-39/08
B1-04/06 Bacillus
B1-05/06
B1-21/06
B1-22/06
B1-29/06
B1-35/06
P1-20/08 Pseudomonas
B1-35/06+P1-20/08
Number of field trials
Positive yield response
10
2
1
1
5
3
3
2
2
8
5
3
4
2
1
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
% increase
11-30
19
16
10
10
9-13
10-23
14
8
38
11-17
28
18
16
9
Pot trial using bacterial strains to inoculate potato plants growing in
substrate with different pH
dry tuber weight in g
12
9
6
3
0
4.5
5.6
6.8
7.8
pH
P1-20/08
B1-35/06
A2-20/08
A3-19/08
Control
Peso seco de tuberculos in g de plantas de papa inoculadas
con rhizobacterias en substratos con diferentes texturas
20
tuberculos in g/plant
15
10
5
Arena
Musgo
Tierra
100
0
0
80
20
0
60
40
0
40
60
0
0
10
90
0
25
75
0
50
50
20
40
40
0
P1-20/08
B1-35/06
A2-19/08
A3-19/08
A1-19/08
Control
200
Incrementos en % del
150
peso seco de tuberculos
de plantas de papa
inoculadas con
% 100
rhizobacterias en
substratos con diferentes
50
texturas
0
P1-20/08
B1-35/06
A2-19/08
A3-19/08
A1-19/08
Results of fields trials
4.2 t/ha
Control
17.2 t/ha
P1-08/08
B1-21/06
A2-01/08
A3-39/08
A3-16/08
A1-30/08
A1-30/06
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
% increase/reduction over control
Salcedo
Tahuaco
40
Future activities
I.
Fertilizer use efficiency
I.
II.
II.
Minimum tillage
I.
II.
III.
Use in pre-basic seed production;
Use in marginal environments and low-input systems;
Improve the quality and efficiency of organic fertilizers;
Nutrient management
I.
II.
V.
Developing minimum tillage systems for tuber crops;
Developing MT options for marginal environments;
Biological amendments
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Improving the efficiency of organic inputs for low-input systems;
Improving the efficiency of inorganic fertilizers for high input
systems;
Farm nutrient inventories;
Capacity building in nutrient management – NARS and farmers
Genetic improvement
I.
II.
Screening for fertilizer use efficiency;
and/or nutrient appropiation capacity;
gracias