Home About AAR Products & Services Research & Development Publication Latest News

Browsing articles in "Oil Palm"

[addw2p name=”fertilizerMgmt”]
Objectives of fertiliser management
Computation of fertiliser requirement
Balanced fertilisation
Potential nutrient losses and environmental concerns
Economics of fertiliser recommendations
Additional agronomic principles for young palms

Objectives of fertiliser management

i) The objectives of fertiliser management in oil palm used to be straightforward as follows:

To supply each palm with adequate nutrients in balanced proportion to ensure healthy vegetative growth and optimum economic FFB yields.
To apply the fertilisers in the prescribed manner over the areas of the estate that are likely to result in the most efficient uptake of nutrients.
To integrate the use of mineral fertilisers and palm residues.

ii) However, the following conditions make achieving the objectives a challenge nowadays:

Shortage of reliable and skilled workers, and high turn-over in work force.
Environmental concerns which are related to over-fertilisation, land degradation, and pollution from heavy metals e.g. cobalt and eutrophication by P.
Expansion of oil palm into areas with little information on the soil properties, climate etc which are necessary for good fertiliser management e.g. the
cultivation of oil palms on ultrabasic soils.
Managing larger manuring blocks which can result in over generalisation. In fact, this approach goes against the current trend of site-specific fertiliser
management and precision agriculture.
Rising fertiliser prices which increase production costs.
Planting oil palm in countries where lack of clear law and order or understanding them can be a yield-limiting factor e.g. Indonesia and southern
Phillipines.

iii) Therefore, the agronomic principles of an effective fertiliser management should take all the above into account and balance the above needs and
objectives with the resources in the estates. The key steps are:

Determine the growth and yield targets.

Assess the nutrient requirements to attain the above and prevent the occurrence of nutrient deficiency.
Assess the management level and resources of the estate.
Ascertain the most efficient and cost effective fertilisers and applications of fertilisers to meet the nutrient requirements.
Compute the economics of the recommendations and expected results.
Monitor the outcome including the economic returns.
Decide on further action required and repeat the steps if necessary.

iv) Most of these steps should be covered by other lectures in this course but for completeness and comprehensibility of our lecture, we shall briefly discuss
them.

Computation of fertiliser requirement

i) There are several methods commonly used for the formulation of fertiliser recommendations. These include:

Critical leaf and/or soil nutrient level method

Optimum nutrient ratio method
Yield response function method and
Nutrient balance method

ii) In actual practice, derivation of fertiliser rates does not rely exclusively on any one method. An integrated approach, which combines the above methods,
is usually adopted and AAR is one of its proponents.

iii) Primarily, the nutrient balance method is employed first to compute the nutrient requirements of oil palm in a manuring block. This approach assumes that
the oil palm agroecosystem has definite components of nutrient removal (demand) from the system and nutrient return (supply) to the system (Figure 1). The
components of nutrient demand are:

Growth
Yield
Nutrient losses through leaching, run-off and erosion
Nutrient removed by pest damage and
Nutrient non-availability and antagonisms.

The components of nutrient supply are:

Nutrient returns from the palms, e.g. pruned fronds

Nutrient returns from leguminous covers
Rainfall
Soil
Fertilisers

The basic principle is then to estimate the total demand of the palm and match it with the nutrient supply by the oil palm agroecosystem excluding the
fertiliser component. The shortfall between the nutrient demand and supply, which is also called gross nutrient requirements, should be met by fertilisers.

iv) A number of studies have been made to quantify the various components of nutrient demand and supply in the oil palm agroecosystem.

v) The two largest components of nutrient demand are Growth and Yield. They are also the first key steps in an effective fertiliser management scheme as
outlined earlier. Thus, it is essential that the agronomist estimates the growth rate and yield trend of a manuring block right from the start. A typical example
of the growth rate of oil palm using leaf area as the criterion is shown in Figure 2. Coupled with the leaf nutrient concentrations, the agronomist will be able to
estimate the nutrient requirements necessary to attain the expected growth. Similarly, the yield profiles in different regions of Malaysia as illustrated in Figure
3 will provide a clue on the nutrient removal per year from the manuring block which should be replaced by fertiliser inputs.

vi) On the nutrient supply side, available data suggests that atmospheric returns are probably insignificant. However, pruned fronds can provide substantial
nutrients to the palms to the tune of 36% for N and 27% for K on poor inland soils in Peninsular Malaysia. In mature oil palm areas, the last component of
nutrient supply is soils. Unfortunately, most Malaysian soils including those from Sabah are inherently poor in nutrients particularly N and P (Table 1).
Therefore, most of the nutrients required by the palms have to come from fertilisers, usually in mineral forms.

An example of the computation of nutrient balance and fertiliser requirements to sustain 30 t/ha/yr in a mature oil palm field is shown in Table 2. It is
assumed that the oil palm is in a steady state and grown on a soil with poor fertility. Under steady state condition, the canopy size remains constant and
therefore, the nutrient requirements for canopy growth should be met by the nutrients recycled from the pruned fronds. The final analysis shows that the
annual fertilisers needed for each palm to satisfy the gross nutrient requirements totalled 10.75 kg and comprise 4.22 kg Ammonium chloride, 0.97 kg
Jordan phosphate rock, 3.59 kg Muriate of Potash and 1.97 kg Kieserite.

While the nutrient balance approach provides the gross nutrient requirement, it does not work out the fertiliser requirements directly. We need information
from fertiliser trials to enlighten us on the optimum fertiliser rates and the yield responses. In Sabah, the oil palms respond mainly to N fertiliser followed
by K and P fertilisers (Table 3). The response to N generally exceeds 15 % except on Lumisir Family soil. The latter might be attributed to its high
inherent soil fertility status as indicated by the yields in the control plots (no fertiliser). K responses are mainly lower than those experienced in Peninsular
Malaysia. Again, this can be explained by the relatively high soil exchangeable K status as shown in Table 1. These results strongly imply that the
agronomist must know and understand the soil properties in the manuring blocks, not just the soil names, to draw up proper and effective fertiliser
recommendations to the estates.

We can also predict the fertiliser efficiency in each trial by plotting the gross nutrient requirements against the fertiliser rates as shown in Figure 4 while
Table 4 shows the fertiliser efficiencies in some coastal and inland soils in Peninsular Malaysia. The highest K fertiliser efficiency was in Munchong series
soil at 83%. This was due to the poor soil K reserve and good yield response to K fertilization. The lowest fertiliser K efficiency was found in Briah series
soil at 19% due to high fertiliser rates and soil K status. In general, fertiliser efficiency is affected by the gross nutrient requirement, imbalanced nutrition,
fertiliser rates, soil fertility and nutrient losses.

Collating and assimilating the data from fertiliser trials conducted worldwide have enhanced the confidence of the agronomists to extrapolate the results
to other sites with similar conditions and combining them with nutrient balance computation, leaf analysis and soil fertility status to produce the fertiliser
recommendations.

Balanced fertilisation

High fertiliser rates alone will not always provide optimum economic returns: a balanced fertiliser program is also essential as illustrated in Table 5.
Nitrogen increased yield by 49% in the presence of high K rate. Similarly, there was a 25% yield response to K when high N rate was applied. Both N and
K also had beneficial effect on the vegetative dry matter production.

Apart from the above, application of K fertiliser will decrease oil to bunch ratio in the absence of N fertiliser (Table 6). However, with sufficient N level, K
fertiliser generally increased the oil to bunch ratio to similar level compared to the control.

Positive interactions of K fertiliser with other agronomic practices such as mulching, frequency of application and frond placement have been reported to
increase yield between 4% and 14%.
While capitalising on synergistic effects will improve yield and fertiliser efficiency, avoidance of antagonistic effects is also necessary to maximise fertiliser
use. For example, high K rates have been shown to depress Mg and B uptakes and might decrease yield.

Potential nutrient losses and environmental concerns

The recommended fertilisers should be applied in a manner that they are absorbed by the palms at maximum efficiency. This is best done by minimising
fertiliser losses in the plantation, which is even more important now in view of the current economic woes. It should also minimise environmental problems if
any.

Nutrients may be lost by surface run-off, leaching through the soil profile, nutrients fixation, volatilisation and immobilisation by ground covers in young oil
palm. An understanding of these nutrient loss mechanisms is essential to alleviate them and improve fertiliser efficiency.

i) Surface run-off

On average 11% of N, 3% of P, 5% of K, 6% of Mg and 5% of Ca applied can be lost in surface run-off alone (Table 7). These results were obtained
during a low rainfall year with only 1426 mm on a 9% slope. The most susceptible areas for run-off tend to occur in the harvester’s path and along the oil
palm rows where the soils are more compacted and the ground vegetation is generally sparse.

More recent data obtained by AAR also indicate that the mean run-off losses as percentage of the nutrient applied are within the following ranges: 5-8%
N, 10-15% K, 4-6% Mg and less than 2 % for P (Table 8). These results show that soluble nutrients such as N, K and Mg are more susceptible to run-off
losses. We further found that nutrient losses via surface run-off are highly dependent on the rainfall pattern at the time of fertiliser application, particularly
during the first few rains after application and the antecedent moisture status of the soil. Other equally important factors, which might affect run-off, are
the canopy cover, rainfall intensity and quantity, soil characteristics and slope.

ii) Leaching losses

Leaching losses during the first four years of oil palm growth (as % of total nutrient applied) have been found to be about 17% N, 10% K and 70% Mg.
Losses are substantially reduced to about 3% N, 3% K and 12% Mg when the palms are fully matured (Table 9). The main reasons for the high leaching
losses during the early stage of palm growth are probably poor palm canopy cover, less extensive root system and ground covers are generally not well
established especially during the first year after planting.

iii) P Fixation

Losses due to fixation by the soil involve mainly phosphate fertilisers. The P fixing capacities of some of the common Malaysian soils are shown in Table
10. The amount of P ‘fixed’ ranged from 208 mg to 1172 mg per kg soil and is related to its clay mineralogy. Although soils with high P fixing capacity
improve P dissolution of phosphate rock, they also decrease the soil solution P (intensity), which is required for plant uptake. The general approach is to
use less reactive phosphate rock and concentrated application of fertiliser through high rate and banding for these soils.

iv) Volatilisation losses

Volatilisation losses are only significant when urea is surface applied, usually over the compacted weeded palm circles. High volatilisation losses in the oil
palm field occurred at high rates of fertilization and on light texture soils as shown in Table 11.
To increase the efficiency of urea, it should preferably be buried in the ground. However this practice is only suited to small-scale cultivation and unlikely
to be practical and economical on a large plantation. Correct timing provides a more suitable means to improve the efficiency of applied urea. For
example, volatilisation loss is reduced if urea is applied when moderate rains are expected so that the fertiliser may be washed into the soil.

v) Immobilisation by ground cover in young oil palm

Weed growth is strongest in high light conditions in immature plantation. The young palms without extensive root systems are less able to compete for
nutrients at this stage, which reduce their nutrient uptake and growth (Table 12). One point of interest is that the total N immobilised by the ground covers
commonly exceeded run-off losses and immobilisation by young oil palms.
With respect to interrow vegetation management, spraying out the competitive weeds in the interrow vegetation at immaturity and maturity on Selangor
series soil (fertile soil) gave the highest oil palm yields after 4 and 6 ½ years respectively. On the other hand, over spraying could lead to bare ground
conditions which might cause higher leaching losses, reduce soil moisture and result in poorer soil structure. This in turn may lower FFB yield.

Economics of fertiliser recommendations

The plantation industry is a business proposition and as such, the economic value of a fertiliser is important. This is because the application of fertiliser
necessarily increases the cost of production, which has to be at least offset by an increase in yield in order to be profitable.
Owing to the delay in the effect of fertiliser on yield, the additional return from the increased yield may be realised in full only after 8 months or even a few
years. Furthermore, the magnitude of yield response may vary considerably and the economic comparisons of fertilisers should be based on a
discounted cash flow or a similar scheme over the specified period.
An example of the economic computation of two sources of fertiliser is provided in Table 13. We choose kieserite versus ground magnesium limestone
(GML) to illustrate the point that knowing the agronomic efficiency of a fertiliser as obtained from fertiliser trials is insufficient to recommend its
application. Table 13 shows that the agronomic efficiency of GML based on substitution rate was only 74% as effective as kieserite. However, GML was
only one-third the price of kieserite at the time of writing. This favoured GML with the consequent relative economic efficiency reaching 2.5. This meant
that GML was 1.5 times more efficient compared to kieserite in economic terms.
Using the above approach, an expensive fertiliser may be more economical to use if its agronomic efficiency far outweighs its price ratio compared to its
competitors.
Although the above computation is a standard in economics, of late there are counter arguments which suggest that the selection of a fertiliser should be
based on its agronomic efficiency instead of economic efficiency. This contrasting proposition stems from the fact that commodity prices are usually
unpredictable and therefore, the economic efficiency can vary substantially. Such view is probably a fallacy since decision-making processes in
agriculture, like all businesses, are always done in the face of uncertainty, be it prices or weather etc. Moreover, the use of tender fertiliser prices will allay
or negate part of the problems. In plantation agriculture, profit considerations are given the highest priority and therefore, the economic efficiency will
always take the centre stage.

Additional agronomic principles for young palms

The strategy in young palms, apart from the above, should be:

To minimise nutrient requirements by maximising returns from the biomass of the previous crops e.g. rubber, cocoa or oil palm by the shredding and no-
burn techniques currently practised in many plantations.
To promote growth of very good leguminous covers with high P and Mg applications and subsequent large nutrient return including N fixed.

Such an approach would reduce fertiliser requirements of the young palms substantially and improve growth and yields, thereby leading to extensive
benefits all round.

Reference
Goh, K.J., Teo, C.B., Chew, P.S. and Chiu, S. B. (1999) Fertiliser management in oil palm: Agronomic principles and field practices. In: Fertiliser
management for oil palm plantations, 20-21, September 1999, ISP North-east Branch, Sandakan, Malaysia: 44 pp

Note: The full list of references quoted in this article is available from the above paper.

[addw2p name=”fertilizerMgmt”]
Introduction

Many papers have been written to highlight the importance of fertilisers for oil palm. The main premise is that healthy palms will produce optimum FFB
(fresh fruit bunch) yield, which is the primary commodity of most plantations.
Oil palm is unrivalled in its ability to convert solar energy into dry matter and vegetable (palm) oil. However, this process requires a large amount of
nutrients which must be supplied by the soil or fertilisers.
Unfortunately, most soils grown with oil palms have low soil fertility and therefore, mineral fertilisers are usually necessary to achieve and sustain good
palm nutritional status and large yields.
In fact, fertilisers alone constitute about 24% of the total production cost of oil palm in Malaysia. The present economic slowdown has caused the
Malaysian Ringgit to depreciate against the US dollar with the consequent rise in most fertiliser prices. This has increased the production cost of oil palm
by as much as 13%.
One of the best means to reduce production cost is to sustain maximum yield at any one site. The maximum yield is usually close to the optimum yield
because of the high indirect costs in oil palm management. However, the optimum yield is subject to the vagaries of commodity prices and therefore,
difficult to predict, let alone sustain. Hence, we advocate the approach to maximise and maintain the highest yield possible at any one site, which is also
known as site yield potential.
The above is one of the central tenets of plantation management because it enables the highest revenue to be attained at the lowest possible cost for an
assured best profit. This will help to enhance the attractiveness of the oil palm industry.
In fact, the ability of the oil palm industry to compete with others is highly essential if we are to attract reliable and skilled workers and reduce the high
turn-over of work force. This is vital towards the long-term sustainability of oil palm plantations.
The above points show that the benefits of sound fertiliser management for oil palm go beyond preventing nutrient deficiency and maintaining healthy
palms, which have long been recognised by the industry. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Malaysian oil palm industry has invested millions of dollars
in research and development on fertiliser use since the 1920’s when oil palm was first commercially grown.
These notes discuss the main issues of fertiliser management in oil palm in the face of the changing scenarios in plantation management. It covers the
following:
Agronomic principles in fertiliser management
Deficiency symptoms and correction
Toxicity symptoms
Sources of fertilizer
Methods of fertilizer application
Computation of optimal fertilizer rates
Pathway of soil and fertilizer nutrient losses
Fertilizer efficiency
Future works & Research in oil palm agronomy & work on precision agriculture
Current Challenges in oil palm plantations

Reference
Goh, K.J., Teo, C.B., Chew, P.S. and Chiu, S. B. (1999) Fertiliser management in oil palm: Agronomic principles and field practices. In: Fertiliser
management for oil palm plantations, 20-21, September 1999, ISP North-east Branch, Sandakan, Malaysia: 44 pp

[addw2p name=”leachingLosses”]
The downward movement of N fertilizer was mainly in the form of NH4-N with very little NO3-N because the source of fertilizer was NH4Cl. This study also
indicated that the rate of nitrification was probably slow during the monsoon period. The concentration of N and K in the soil solution decreased with soil
depth being highest at 30 cm from the soil surface followed by 60 and 120 cm. The N leaching losses of the applied N fertilizer during the monsoon period in
Sabah, North Borneo were 1.0 and 1.6% for treatments, N1P2K0 and N1P2K1, respectively. Higher K leaching losses were obtained at 5.3 and 2.4% for
N0P2K1 and N1P2K1, respectively. The groundwater quality under mature oil palms did not exceed the contamination level set by WHO when N and K
fertilizers were applied at their optimum rates for oil palm. However, there was a possibility of pollution of groundwater quality when excessive N fertilizer was
applied which was mainly in the form of NH4 + ion. The concentration of NO3 – ion in the groundwater was below 0.5 mg L-1 even when excessive N fertilizer
was applied due to low nitrification rate.

[addw2p name=”leachingLosses”]

Downward movement of N and K: The concentrations of inorganic N in the soil solutions throughout the vertical soil profile were mainly dominated by
NH4+ ion rather than NO3– because the source of N fertilizer was ammonium chloride. Significant increased in NO3-N in the soil solution was only observed
75 days after fertilizer application. This implied that nitrification was relatively slow in the soil during the monsoon period. This might be attributed to the high
NH4+ concentration which inhibits the activity of nitrifiers in the soils and the low soil organic matter which reduces the population of nitrifiers[40].

The concentrations of N and K in the soil solution decreased with soil depth being highest at 30 cm from the soil surface followed by 60 and 120 cm. Similar
findings were reported by Schroth et al.[32]. This nutrient profile might be partially explained by dilution effect as the solubilized N and K fertilizers seeped
downward with the surplus soil moisture from the high rainfall during the monsoon period. Besides this, nutrient uptake by palm roots will remove some of
these ions resulting in lower nutrient concentrations in the soil solution with deeper soil depth. Furthermore,
Kee et al.[36] reported that roots reduced the movement of exchangeable K down the soil profile. This implied that soil solution K+ as well as NH4+ also
reduced as ions moved downward. At all three depths, higher concentration of inorganic N was obtained at N1P2K1 compared with N1P2K0. This could be
to K enhancing the downward movement of NH4+ in the soil solution[37].

We also found higher K concentration in the soil solution when N was applied (N1P2K1 versus N0P2K1). This could be due to the displacement of K+ from
the soil colloidal surfaces to soil solution by NH4+ from the nitrogen fertilizer. Moreover, vegetative uptake of NH4+ will increase the production of H+ in the
soil[38] which then displaced K+[15] into the soil solution.

Forty five days after fertilizer application, the NH4+ concentration in the top 30 cm was significantly lower by about 33% (Fig. 4). Although part of the
NH4+ disappearance can be accounted for by palm uptake, probably a larger amount had moved beyond its depth as indicated by the increased
NH4 + concentrations in the lower soil depths. By 105 days, almost all the applied NH4+ had disappeared from the top 30 cm of the soil profile. The rate of
decline in NH4+ concentration in the soil solution was about 1.3 mg L-1. Thus, the interval of applying N fertilizer during the monsoon period should be
between 90 and 105 days to avoid excess NH4+ in the soil solution. The disappearance of total inorganic N in the top 30 cm was even more rapid when both
N and K fertilizers were applied (Fig. 9). The rate of decline in K+ concentration was about 1.4 mg L-1 and virtually all the applied K disappeared at about the
same time as NH4+ ion since both nutrients are likely to move down the profile together[36].

N and K leaching losses: The amount of N and K in the leachate obtained at 120 cm depth are considered as leaching losses since most oil palm roots are
found within the top 60 cm of the soils[7,39]. The quantity of N and K leaching losses in this study were a function of the volume of water in the soil, fertilizer
treatment and rate of nutrient uptake by the palm roots. The overall leaching losses of inorganic N were 1.0 and 1.6% of the applied fertilizer for N1P2K0 and
N1P2K1, respectively. This conforms with the findings of Chang and Zakaria[9] and Foong[10]. These authors ascribed the low N leaching losses under
mature oil palms to the high uptake of both soil moisture and N to sustain productivity. The N leaching loss was higher in the presence of K fertilizer due to
the displacement of NH4+ ion by K+ ion as discussed earlier.

The K leaching losses were higher than N at 5.3 and 2.4% for N0P2K1 and N1P2K1, respectively. These results were agreeable with those of Foong[10]
where K leaching rate was higher than N in the higher weathered tropical soils. Unlike N, the K leaching losses were lower in the presence of N fertilizer.
This might be indirectly related to better K uptake by the palms in well balanced fertilizer treatment resulting in better productivity (Table 1) and thus, higher K
off-take via the fresh fruit bunches which contain large amount of K[7]. The consequent is lower K+ concentration in the soil solution.

Groundwater quality: The groundwater quality was only affected by the NH4+ where its concentration went beyond the WHO[30] limit of 0.5 mg L-1 when N
fertilizer was applied at twice the optimum rate for oil palms. This was mainly contributed by the large amount of unabsorbed N from the soluble N fertilizer
which was still present in the soils during the monsoon period. The concentration of NO3–N in the groundwater was very low at 0.5 mg L-1 even at the
highest N fertilizer rate tested which agreed with our contention that nitrification rate was low in this soil. The NO3–N concentration was far below the
maximum limit set by WHO[30], which was 10 mg L-1. Most of the N from the fertilizer that reached the groundwater in the monitoring well was mainly
dominated by NH4 + rather than NO3+ which corresponded well with the composition of inorganic N in the soil solution as discussed earlier.

The applications of K fertilizer increased the K mean concentrations of groundwater to between 4.28 and 9.54 mg L-1 which were below the WHO[30] limit of
12 mg L-1. The higher K concentration in the groundwater in the absence of N (N0P2K1) compared with N1P2K1 might be partially explained by its higher
leaching losses due to poorer K uptake by the palm. Nevertheless, in certain days during the monsoon period, the K concentration in the well exceeded 12
mgL-1 but it was only for a short period and only occurred when excessive N (N2) was applied. Furthermore, the K rate in this study was above the optimum
rate for oil palm to ensure its sufficiency for full expression of yield responses to N and P.

[addw2p name=”leachingLosses”]

Ammonium nitrogen: The mean NH4-N concentration of N1P2K1 at 33.69 mg L-1 was significantly higher than N1P2K0 at 8.15 mg L-1 (Fig. 1). Both
treatments had higher NH4-N concentrations than treatments without N (N0P0K0 and N0P2K1). In the presence of K, NH4-N concentrations increased 4.1
fold when N fertilizer was applied and 3.5 times in the absence of N application.

Most of the NH4-N was found in the top 60 cm of the soil profile where majority of the palm roots may be located[7]. However, the mean NH4-N
concentrations decreased significantly with soil depth (Fig. 2). It was 17.89 mg L-1 at 30 cm depth declining to 12.19 and 6.52 mg L-1 at soil depths of 60 and
120 cm, respectively. The decline in NH4-N concentration was more rapid between 30 and 60 cm compared with the lower soil depths.

The changes in NH4-N concentrations among fertilizer treatments and between soil depths varied significantly across time (Fig. 3 and 4). At day 15, which
was the first sampling date after treatments, the NH4-N concentrations in the soil solution of N0P0K0 and N0P2K1 were 1.99 and 5.48 mg L-1, respectively
(Fig. 3). This indicated that even without N fertilizer, there were NH4-N ions present in the soil solution probably from the native soil N and decaying palm
biomass. These values provided the baseline NH4-N concentrations in the soils in the experimental site implying poor N fertility. With N treatments, N1P2K0
and N1P2K1, the NH4-N concentrations at the 15th day were 20.82 and 121.35 mg L1-, respectively. The NH4- N concentrations of N1P2K1 treatment
decreased sharply between day 15 and day 30 and then more gradually until it reached 1.86 mg L-1 at day 150. However, the NH4-N concentrations were
statistically similar to the baseline values from day 75 after treatment. The NH4-N concentrations of N1P2K0 also declined rapidly and reached the baseline
value 30 days after treatment. It continued to decrease to 1.60 mg L-1 at day 150.

Fig. 1: Concentration of NH4-N in soil solution for each fertilizer treatment

Fig. 2: Concentration of NH4-N in soil solution across soil vertical profile

Fig. 3: Fertilizer × time effect on concentration of NH4- N in soil solution (a) for comparing two times at difference level of treatments (b) for comparing two
times at the same level of treatments

Fifteen days after treatments, the NH4-N concentrations in the soil solution were similar at soil depths of 30 and 60 cm (Fig. 4). They were 40.45 and 50.55
mg L-1, respectively and both concentrations were higher than at 120 cm depth of 21.23 mg L-1.

Fig. 4: Depth × time effect on concentration of NH4-N in soil solution (c) for comparing two times at difference level of depths (d) for comparing two times at
the same level of depths

The NH4-N concentrations in all soil depths decreased rapidly and reached similar values after 90 days from treatments. The NH4-N concentration at day
150 at 30 cm depth was 1.1 mg L-1, 60 cm depth 0.73 mg L-1 and 120 cm depth 1.32 mg L-1 (Fig. 4).

Nitrate nitrogen: The average NO3-N concentration at 15 days after treatment was low at 0.214 mg L-1 (Fig. 5). It gradually rose to 0.485 mg L-1at day 60.
A period of relatively dry weather between day 45 and 60 seemed to enhance nitrification resulting in the NO,3- N concentration increasing significantly to
1.37 mg L-1 at day 75. However, it declined continuously to 0.141 mg L-1 at day 150 indicating that the transformation of NH4-N to NO3-N was not a major
process during the monsoon period. The mean NO3-N concentrations between 30 and 60 cm soil depth were 0.599 and 0.732 mg L-1, which were
significantly higher than at 120 cm soil depth of 0.266 mg L-1 (Fig. 6). The proportion of NO3-N to total inorganic N was in the range of 0.03-0.06 only
indicating relatively low nitrification rate.

Total inorganic nitrogen: The total inorganic N was mainly composed of NH4-N and thus the effects of fertilizer treatments on its concentrations were
similar to NH4-N concentrations as discussed earlier. Briefly, the total inorganic N concentration of N1P2K1 at 35.03 mg L-1was significantly higher than the
other three fertilizer treatments (Fig. 7). Although the total inorganic N concentrations in the first three treatments were statistically insignificant, there was a
clear trend showing higher N concentrations in the presence of K (6.09 mg L-1) and N (8.45 mg L-1) compared with control (1.69 mg L-1) as shown in Fig. 7.