Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-c52kr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T23:29:50.155Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effects of contrasted cropping systems on yield and N balance of upland rainfed rice in Madagascar: Inputs from the DSSAT model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2020

Julie Dusserre*
Affiliation:
CIRAD, UPR AIDA, F-34398Montpellier, France AIDA, University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France
Patrice Autfray
Affiliation:
AIDA, University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France CIRAD, UPR AIDA, 110Antsirabe, Madagascar
Miora Rakotoarivelo
Affiliation:
Institut d’Enseignement Supérieur d’Antsirabe - Vakinakaratra, Madagascar
Tatiana Rakotoson
Affiliation:
Université d’Antananarivo, Ecole Supérieure des Sciences Agronomiques, BP 175, Antananarivo, Madagascar
Louis-Marie Raboin
Affiliation:
CIRAD, UPR AIDA, F-34398Montpellier, France AIDA, University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France
*
*Corresponding author: Email: julie.dusserre@cirad.fr
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In response to the extensive development of upland rice on the hillsides of the Malagasy highlands, alternative cropping systems have been designed based on conservation agriculture (CA). As the promotion of CA in smallholder farming systems is still the subject of debate, its potential benefits for smallholder farmers require further assessment. In the context of resource-poor farmers and low-input production systems, nitrogen (N) is a major limiting nutrient. The effects of contrasted cropping systems have been studied on upland rice yield and N uptake in rainfed conditions: conventional tillage (CT) and CA with a mulch of maize or a legume (Stylosanthes or velvet bean). Decision Support Systems for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT) crop growth model was used to quantify the soil N balance according to the season and the cropping system. The lowest yields were obtained in CA with a mulch of maize and were also associated with the lowest crop N uptake. Upland rice yields were higher or equivalent under CA with a legume mulch than under CT cropping systems. The supply of N was considerably higher in CA with a legume mulch than in CT, but due to higher leaching and immobilization in CA, the final contribution of N from the mulch to the crop was reduced although not negligible. DSSAT has been shown to be sufficiently robust and flexible to simulate the soil N balance in contrasting cropping systems. The challenge is now to evaluate the model in less contrasted experimental conditions in order to validate its use for N uptake and yield prediction in support to the optimization and design of new cropping systems.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Rainfall and accumulated rainfall (mm) at the experimental site during the five growing seasons. Season 2012–2013: rice sowing date November 30, harvest March 29; Season 2013–2014: sowing date November 20, harvest March 27; Season 2014–2015: sowing date November 29, harvest April 6 in experiment 1; sowing date November 26, harvest March 25 in experiment 2; Season 2015–2016: rice sowing date November 23, harvest March 31; Season 2016–2017: sowing date November 16, harvest March 15.

Figure 1

Table 1. Description of the experimental treatments in the different datasets. T or CT: conventional tillage; CAm: no-tillage with a mulch of maize; CAs: no-tillage with a mulch of stylosanthes; uN: unit of N applied in kg h−1; LAI: Leaf area index (m2 m−²); AGPN: aboveground plant N (kg ha−1); AGB: aboveground biomass (t ha−1); GY: grain yield (t ha−1); RLD: Root length density (cm cm−3); SN: Soil inorganic N content (kg ha−1)

Figure 2

Table 2. Rice grain yield (t ha−1), grain, and straw N content (%), crop N uptake at harvest and at flowering (kg ha−1), number of panicles per m², number of spikelets per panicle, percentage of filled grain (%), and 1000 grain weight (g) of upland rice in experiment 2 in 2015, under the different cropping systems: conventional tillage (CT), no-tillage with a mulch of maize (CAm), and no-tillage with a mulch of Stylosanthes (CAs); and two levels of inorganic N application: with no inorganic N application (N0) and with an application (N) of 60 N kg ha−1. within treatments, means followed by different letters are significantly different according to LSD (p < 0.05)

Figure 3

Table 3. Rice grain yield (t ha−1), grain and straw N content (%), crop N uptake at harvest and at flowering (kg ha−1), number of panicles per m², number of spikelets per panicle, percentage of filled grain (%) and 1000 grain weight (g) of upland rice in experiment 2 in 2016, under the different cropping systems: conventional tillage (CT), no-tillage with a mulch of maize (CAm), and no-tillage with a mulch of velvet bean (CAv); and two levels of inorganic N application: with no inorganic N application (N0) and with an application (N) of 60 N kg ha−1. Within treatments, means followed by different letters are significantly different according to LSD (p < 0.05)

Figure 4

Table 4. Rice grain yield (t ha−1), grain and straw N content (%), crop N uptake at harvest and at flowering (kg ha−1), number of panicles per m², number of spikelets per panicle, percentage of filled grain (%), and 1000 grain weight (g) of upland rice in experiment 3 in 2017, under the different cropping systems: conventional tillage (CT) and no-tillage with a mulch of Stylosanthes (CAs). Within treatments, means followed by different letters are significantly different according to LSD (p < 0.05)

Figure 5

Figure 2. Comparison of observed and simulated crop N uptake at harvest (a), at flowering stage (b), grain yield (c) in the different experiments, and soil inorganic N content (d) in experiment 3. The dotted line is the 1:1 line.

Figure 6

Figure 3. Simplified N balance simulated by the DSSAT model for experiment 2 in 2015 (a), in 2016 (b) and in experiment 3 in 2017 (c), with conventional tillage (CT), no-tillage with a mulch of maize (CAm), no-till with a mulch of Stylosanthes (CAs) or no-till with a mulch of velvet bean (CAv), and two levels of inorganic N application: no inorganic N application (N0) and with an application (N) of 60 N kg ha−1 in 2015 and 2016 or 32 N kg ha−1 in 2017.

Figure 7

Figure 4. The relationship between observed crop N uptake at harvest and simulated N available in the soil (a) and the relationship between observed grain yield and simulated N available in the soil (b) in experiment 2. The bars represent standard errors.

Figure 8

Figure 5. The relationship between observed crop N uptake at harvest and simulated N available in the soil (a) and the relationship between observed grain yield and crop N uptake at harvest (b) for all experiments.

Supplementary material: File

Dusserre et al. supplementary material

Dusserre et al. supplementary material 1

Download Dusserre et al. supplementary material(File)
File 91.5 KB
Supplementary material: File

Dusserre et al. supplementary material

Dusserre et al. supplementary material 2

Download Dusserre et al. supplementary material(File)
File 91.5 KB