soil fertility management recommendations
out of 21
Post on 23-Jan-2018
Embed Size (px)
- 1. Soil Fertility Management Recommendations A framework for the analyses of soil and agronomic data to develop recommendations for ISFM E. Jeroen Huising 5/24/2015 ISFM data management and analysis WASHC training workshop 1
- 2. Fertilizer and ISFM recommendations 5/24/2015 ISFM data management and analysis WASHC training workshoph 2 Inputs (nutrients, water, labour, agro-chemicals, energy etc.) Desired Outputs (e.g. Yield) or Undesired Outputs (e.g. N loss, GHG loss) 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 0 50 100 150 200 Fertilizer N applied (kg N ha-1 ) Yield(kgha-1 ) 0 20 40 60 80 N-AE(kg(kgN)-1 ) grain yield AE (a) N response curve and N agronomic efficiency Fertilizer recommendations aiming to maximize yield or economic return, assuming risks are low (optimum economic and biophysical conditions and good management e.g. limited cost for obtaining capital) ISFM Aiming at maximizing agronomic efficiency assuming resource constraints and accounting for the farming conditions of smallholder farmers in Africa.
- 3. Providing solutions to problems with soil crop productivity 5/24/2015 ISFM data management and analysis 3 Where? Assessment of soil fertility status and diagnosis of soil health problems For What? To improve crop productivity; Assess crop requirements, yield gaps etc. For Whom? Who has to implement; Assess the socio- economic conditions (GL GR) E M] Environment Management Germplasm Genetic potential Context Problem Targets
- 4. Potential is not the problemPotential is not the problem!
- 5. Finding solutions to soil health problems 5/24/2015 ISFM data management and analysis 5 Identify (soil health) problem Identify (alternative) solutions Recommended option Decision/ Testing Implementation Monitoring and evaluation From best-bet to best fit; Testing technology and management options on farmers fields; Stepwise approach to full implementation of ISFM
- 6. Integrated Soil Fertility Management 5/24/2015 ISFM data management and analysis 6
- 7. Specificity of the recommendation GRADIENTS Country wide Crop Farming community One particular management aspect (e.g. fertilizer) Site specific Specific crop, type, variety, cropping system Individual farmer Several management aspects (integrated or systems) (e.g. integrated nutrient management) 5/24/2015 ISFM data management and analysis 7 Embracing and understanding variability; spatial and temporal; what is the probability of farmers benefitting
- 8. Levels of sophistication - complexity Rule of thump Expert knowledge (Look-up tables; soil suitability ranking) Empirical models (making use of agronomic trials and using statistical models) Deterministic models (DSSAT, APSIM, crop growth simulation models 5/24/2015 ISFM data management and analysis 8
- 9. 0 1000 2000 3000 low medium high manage me nt maizeyield[kgha -1 ] control (no fertilizer applied) fertilizer applied Maizegrainyield(kg/ha) Management intensity (planting date, crop density, time of P application); Tinfouga, Mali Bationo et al., 1997 Universal principles of nutrient management
- 10. Responsive and Non-responsive soils I. Poor non-responsive soils II. Poor responsive soils III. Fertile non-responsive soils
- 11. From diagnosis to management options (best-bets) 5/24/2015 ISFM data management and analysis 11 X XX XXX X X XXCrop constraints Management constraints Nutrient limitations Soil health constraints Poor, non- responsive soils Responsive soils Fertile, non- responsive soils Attainable yield under rainfed conditions Potential yield for selected crop for area under consideration Agro-climatic constraints Crop variety or cultivar selection Water harvesting & irrigation (semi-) permanent structures Improved agronomic practices Nutrient management recommendations Soil improvement Diagnostic phase Management options
- 12. Practical Definitions for Responsive and Non-Responsive soils Soils that respond to N, P or K (individual or in combination) only are called responsive soils; Soils that show a limitation in any of the three nutrients, but not in any other. These limitation may be solved easily with readily available fertilizers Soils that are responding well to application of meso- or secondary nutrients (Mg, Ca, S) are called intermediate responsive soils Soils that show clear limitations in micro-nutrients and show little or no response to application of macro and secondary nutrients are called non- responsive soils Soils that show little response to macro and meso fertilizer application associated with clear limitations in soil organic matter (clear response to manure application), and/or soil acidity (strong response to lime application), and/or any constraints related to water retention and/or constraints towards root development are likewise call non-responsive soils Based on the above several response classes could be defined 5/24/2015 ISFM data management and analysis 12
- 13. Different approaches; Making recommendation based on soil testing 5/24/2015 ISFM data management and analysis 13 Soil Test Critical Values Calculate nutrient requirements; recommend fertilizer application (crop specific) Testing/evaluation in farmers fields (populations studies) Soil test values/ soil information Soil testing (soil test kits, mobile labs, soil labs) Aims to give fertilizer recommendation based on soil test values; uses soil test interpretation guide to classify nutrient status of the soil, use crop nutrient requirements (or nutrients removed by the crop) to determine nutrient requirement and modified by soil nutrient status to determine application requirement. Gives indication of possible or likely nutrient limitations Is (semi-)quantitative approach; not very accurate or precise; will not predict response accurately; will not capture spatial variability adequately; is simple to understand and use, might be costly if sampling of all farmers field is required Possible improvements, soil test kits might provide alternative, however soil nutrient classes could be predicted from improved soil mapping techniques; use models to more accurately predict fertilizer response.
- 14. Diagnostic trials to determine soil health constraints Nutrient omission trials to determine limiting nutrients (N,P and K, and others as individual nutrients or as complex/compound, e.g. micronutrients), added with treatment like manure, and/or liming Identifies limiting nutrients and degree of nutrient limitation, identifies constraints related to SOM and soil acidity. Is quantitative: determines attainable yield level under optimal management; allows for calculation of AE and results can be used for calibration of models like QUEFTS Multi-location trials allows for determining response classes and assessment of soil fertility status in the region 5/24/2015 ISFM data management and analysis 14 Nutrient omission trials (diagnostic) Attainable yield, Soil health constraints, nutrient limitations Soil Response Category/ Yield gaps Soil fertility management strategy, based on soil response class and evidence Agronomic survey; establish yield gaps on farmers fields
- 15. There marked differences in response patterns between sites; six response classes distinguished, but 04/09/2014 IPI-ATA Symposium 15 Non Resp - Fert Non Resp - Poor Poor Resp. low fert. Resp N&P, intermed fert Resp. P&N Resp N, rel. fert.
- 16. Input (nutrient) response trials Determines response to varying rate of input application (nutrients, manures, inoculants, other); allows for recommendation of fertilizer applications rates and optimum rates for highest AE Requires insight in limiting nutrients and other soil health constraints; not suited for diagnostic purposes Very strong if includes variety trials to select best yield varieties under good management 5/24/2015 ISFM data management and analysis WASHC training workshoph 16 Agronomy trials, variety and nutrient response trials, including soil amendments Crop response to nutrient application and soil amendments Interaction between various crop production factors: GxExM Best bet technology, Area specific fertilizer recommendation; improved agronomic efficiency Demonstration plots, testing on farmers fields
- 17. Expert systems / Decision Support Systems for making recommendations to individual farmers Concept based on: Indigenous soil nutrient supply Fertilizer nutrient recovery Internal nutrient use efficiency Potential yield/attainable yield Nutrient uptake curve 5/24/2015 ISFM data management and analysis WASHC training workshoph 17
- 18. Soil Test Critical Values Calculate nutrient requirements; recommend fertilizer application (crop specific) Testing/evaluation in farmers fields (populations studies) Soil test values/ soil information Soil testing (soil test kits, mobile labs, soil labs) Nutrient omission trials (diagnostic) Attainable yield, Soil health constraints, nutrient limitations Soil Response Category/ Yield gaps Soil fertility management strategy, based on soil response class and evidence Agronomic survey; establish yield gaps on farmers fields Agronomy trials, variety and nutrient response trials, including soil amendments Crop response to nutrient application and soil amendments Interaction between various crop production factors: GxExM Best bet technology, Area specific fertilizer recommendation; improved agronomic efficiency Demonstration plots, testing on farmers fields QUEFTS empirical model Decision support tools (DSSAT, APSIM) Data and information Knowledge / interpretation Recommendations and learning Expert systems/ DST; nutrient manager Individual and specific recommendations. Crop choice; alternative solutions, farm management C o m p l e x i t y 5/24/2015 ISFM data management and analysis WASHC Training Workshop 18
- 19. Di
View more >