ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Agron.
Sec. Climate-Smart Agronomy
Volume 7 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fagro.2025.1609528
This article is part of the Research TopicRegenerative Agriculture for Soil Health, Greenhouse Gas Mitigation, and Climate ActionView all 8 articles
INDIGENOUS NUTRIENT SUPPLY AND FERTILIZER USE EFFICIENCY IN RAINFED LOWLAND RICE IN EASTERN UGANDA
Provisionally accepted- 1International Potato Centre (Uganda), Kampala, Uganda
- 2Faculty of Agriculture and Animal Sciences, Busitema University, Busitema, Uganda
- 3University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya
- 4International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (Zambia), Lusaka, Zambia
- 5International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Nairobi, Kenya
- 6Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit, Bonn, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
The yields and supply of rice has have continuously remained low despite increase in demand. A study was carried out using Randomized Complete Block Design to determine the indigenous nutrient supply (INS) of lowland rice soils and the nutrient use efficiency of fertilizer use in order to develop a site specific nutrient management option for eastern Uganda. Indigenous nutrient supply was determined by the omission plot technique using five treatments; control (no fertilizer), NPK, PK (-N), NK (-P) and NP (-K) with NPK rates of 58.2 kg N ha -1 , 13.2 kg P ha -1 and 49 kg K ha -1 . A total of 27 omission experiments were set up over a two-year period with each farmer acting as a replicate.The grain yield ranged from 1.1-8.7 t ha -1 with the mean of 3.8 t ha -1 . The full NPK treatment yielded significantly higher than PK and control treatments (NPK plots= 4.83 t ha - NP (-K) treatments, respectively. There was no significant difference between treatments for agronomic efficiency of N.The mean RE was 31% N, 9.9% P and 59% K with NPK treatment recording an average RE for N of 46.9%. The RE for P was low at 19% (for NPK), 9.9% (for control and NK), 9.3% for NP and 1.4 for PK. Average IUE was 36.9 kg grain kg -1 N, 270 kg grain kg -1 P and 28 kg grain kg -1 K, respectively. The average indigenous nutrient supplies for nitrogen (INS), phosphorus (IPS) and potassium (IKS) were 52, 9.7 and 87.2 kg ha -1 , respectively.The Gross return over fertilizer cost (GRF) for the full NPK treatment was $1,275.3 ha -1 with gains of $270 ha -1 when compared to the control. The calculated respective N, P and K doses were 63, 12.6 and 24.5 kg ha -1 indicating a saving of 49, 74 and 59% on applied NPK respectively. This study has shown that fertilizer use in eastern Uganda is profitable and SSNM has demonstrated big savings on fertilizer N, P and K.
Keywords: Atacama Consulting, Plot 15, Upper Naguru East Road, Indigenous nutrient sources, rice, Recovery efficiency, Internal use efficiency and Agronomic efficiency
Received: 10 Apr 2025; Accepted: 20 Jun 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Kyalo, Apunyo, Chemining’wa, Nhamo, Wanyama and Mussgnug. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Gerald Kyalo, International Potato Centre (Uganda), Kampala, Uganda
Peter Charles Apunyo, Faculty of Agriculture and Animal Sciences, Busitema University, Busitema, Uganda
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.