back
to
Vietnam map
Central Vietnam
Attainable yield and nutrient deficits (2005)
Attainable
yield with full fertilization and nutrient-limited yields were
determined from nutrient omission plots conducted in 2005 in
five farmers’ fields per soil type. The results by soil textural
class are shown in Tables 1 (spring) and 2 (summer).
Rice grain
yield in plots fully fertilized with N, P, and K provided an
estimate of the attainable yield target, which was slightly
higher in the summer than spring season. The yield of rice not
fertilized with N but fertilized with other nutrients was used
to determine N-limited yield. Similarly, the yield of rice not
fertilized with P but receiving other nutrients indicated
P-limited yield; and the yield of rice not fertilized with K but
receiving other nutrients indicated K-limited yield. The
difference between the yield target and a nutrient-limited yield
indicated the crop response to the nutrient.
In Thua
Thien-Hue, yield response to P averaged <1 t ha−1
for all soils in spring (Table 1) and >1 t ha−1
in summer (Table 2). Yield response to K averaged ≥1 t ha−1
in clay loam and loam soils in spring (Table 1) and in all soils
in summer (Table 2); yield response was higher in summer than in
spring.
In Quang
Nam, data were collected only in the spring season. For both
clay loam and sandy loam soils, the yield response to P was
about
2 t ha−1,
while the yield response to K was >1 t ha−1
(Table 1).
Table
1. Rice yields obtained in spring 2005 with the nutrient
omission plot technique in farmers’ fields in two provinces with
different soil types in central Vietnam.
Values
shown are means of 5 replicates.
|
|
Thua Thien-Hue |
|
Quang Nam |
|
|
Clay loam |
Loam |
Sandy loam |
|
Clay loam |
Sandy loam |
|
Attainable yield target; yield with NPK
(t
ha−1) |
6.0 |
6.9 |
6.3 |
|
6.2 |
6.0 |
|
N-limited yield; yield without N fertilizer (t ha−1) |
5.4 |
5.3 |
4.6 |
|
3.8 |
3.8 |
|
P-limited yield; yield without P fertilizer (t ha−1) |
5.5 |
6.0 |
5.4 |
|
4.1 |
4.1 |
|
K-limited yield; yield without K fertilizer (t ha−1) |
5.0 |
5.7 |
5.6 |
|
4.4 |
4.6 |
|
Yield response to N (t ha−1) |
0.6 |
1.6 |
1.7 |
|
2.4 |
2.2 |
|
Yield response to P (t ha−1) |
0.5 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
|
2.1 |
1.9 |
|
Yield response to K (t ha−1) |
1.0 |
1.2 |
0.7 |
|
1.8 |
1.4 |
Table
2. Rice yields obtained in summer 2005 with the nutrient
omission plot technique in farmers’ fields in Thua Thien-Hue
Province with different soil types.
Values
shown are means of 5 replicates.
|
Parameter |
Clay loam |
Loam |
Sandy loam |
|
Attainable yield target; yield with NPK (t ha−1) |
7.1 |
7.2 |
7.4 |
|
N-limited yield; yield without N fertilizer (t ha−1) |
6.2 |
6.0 |
5.2 |
|
P-limited yield; yield without P fertilizer (t ha−1) |
5.5 |
5.7 |
6.0 |
|
K-limited yield; yield without K fertilizer (t ha−1) |
5.1 |
5.5 |
5.6 |
|
Yield response to N (t ha−1) |
0.9 |
1.2 |
2.2 |
|
Yield response to P (t ha−1) |
1.6 |
1.5 |
1.4 |
|
Yield response to K (t ha−1) |
2.0 |
1.7 |
1.8 |
SSNM-based
nutrient requirements for rice in Thua Thien-Hue and Quang Nam,
central Vietnam
The SSNM
approach was used to estimate fertilizer N, P2O5,
and K2O requirements based on the results in Tables 1
and 2. Total fertilizer N required for rice (Table 3) was
estimated from the measured response to N (Tables 1 and 2) and
an assumed target agronomic efficiency of N (kg yield increase
kg fertilizer N−1) of 20 for both spring and summer.
See
N management for more details.
Total
fertilizer P2O5 and K2O were
estimated from attainable yield target, P-limited yield, and
K-limited yield (Tables 1 and 2) using the
nutrient decision support system (NuDSS). Straw
input was estimated as 2 t ha−1 per cropping season.
Table
3. Fertilizer N, P2O5, and K2O
requirements estimated from results with the nutrient omission
plot technique in Thua Thien-Hue and Quang Nam, central Vietnam,
2005.
Values
shown are the means and standard deviation of 5 replicates per
soil type.
|
Province |
Season & Soil type |
Fertilizer N |
Fertilizer P2O5 |
Fertilizer K2O |
|
|
|
-------------- (kg ha−1)
-------------- |
|
Thua Thien-Hue |
Spring |
|
|
|
|
|
Clay loam |
27 ± 8* |
27 ± 1 |
54 ± 22 |
|
|
Loam |
77 ± 33 |
34 ± 3 |
71 ± 14 |
|
|
Sandy loam |
85
± 27 |
30 ± 3 |
55 ± 11 |
|
|
Summer |
|
|
|
|
|
Clay loam |
46
± 29* |
41 ± 6 |
87 ± 16 |
|
|
Loam |
63
± 32 |
39 ± 11 |
83 ± 18 |
|
|
Sandy loam |
111 ± 42 |
39 ± 7 |
87 ± 24 |
|
Quang Nam |
Spring |
|
|
|
|
|
Clay loam |
122
± 8 |
42 ± 3 |
70 ± 4 |
|
|
Sandy loam |
110 ± 21 |
39 ± 4 |
61 ± 5 |
* These
low estimated fertilizer N rates are the result of high yields
without fertilizer N in farmers’ fields selected in 2005.
Fertilizer N rates would be higher in fields with lower N
fertility.
back to top
|