Next Article in Journal
Emotional Knowledge in a Sample of University Students
Next Article in Special Issue
Can Aquaponics Be Utilized to Reach Zero Hunger at a Local Level?
Previous Article in Journal
Enterprise Digital Transformation and Compliance in Cross-Regional Development: A Dynamic Capabilities Perspective
Previous Article in Special Issue
Fog Water Collection for Local Greenhouse Vegetable Production in the Atacama Desert
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Agroecological Nutrient Management Strategy for Attaining Sustainable Rice Self-Sufficiency in Indonesia

by
Winda Ika Susanti
1,2,*,
Sri Noor Cholidah
2 and
Fahmuddin Agus
3
1
J.F. Blumenbach Institute of Zoology and Anthropology, University of Göttingen, Untere Karspüle 2, 37073 Göttingen, Germany
2
World Resources Institute (WRI Indonesia), Jl. Wijaya I No. 63, Petogogan-Kebayoran Baru, South Jakarta, Jakarta 12170, Indonesia
3
National Research and Innovation Agency, Cibinong 16911, Indonesia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(2), 845; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020845
Submission received: 2 December 2023 / Revised: 27 December 2023 / Accepted: 2 January 2024 / Published: 18 January 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security)

Abstract

:
Rice self-sufficiency is central to Indonesia’s agricultural development, but the country is increasingly challenged by population growth, climate change, and arable land scarcity. Agroecological nutrient management offers solutions though optimized fertilization, enhanced organic matter and biofertilizer utilizations, and improved farming systems and water management. Besides providing enough nutrients for crops, the agroecological approach also enhances resilience to climate change, reduces the intensity of greenhouse gas emissions, and improves the biological functions of rice soil. Organic and bio fertilizers can reduce the need for chemical fertilizers. For example, blue-green algae may contribute 30–40 kg N ha−1, while the application of phosphate solubilizing microbes can reduce the use of chemical phosphorous fertilizers by up to 50 percent. The country currently experiences substantial yield gaps of about 37 percent in irrigated and 48 percent in rain-fed rice. Achieving self-sufficiency requires that Indonesia accelerates annual yield growth through agroecological nutrient management from a historical 40 kg ha−1 year−1 to 74 kg ha−1 year−1. The aim is to raise the average yield from the current 5.2 t ha−1 year−1 to 7.3 t ha−1 year−1 by 2050. Simultaneously, controlling paddy field conversion to a maximum of 30,000 hectares per year is crucial. This strategic approach anticipates Indonesia’s milled rice production to reach around 40 million metric tonnes (Mt) by 2050, with an expected surplus of about 4 Mt.

1. Introduction

Indonesia heavily relies on rice as a staple food, serving as the main component of almost every meal and constituting a fundamental part of the daily diet. Rice cultivation plays a pivotal role in the country’s economy, providing employment to millions in rural areas and supporting livelihoods and local economies. Food security, defined as equal access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food necessary for all people [1], has been an economic, social, and research interest in the past few decades. However, rice self-sufficiency has remained the primary indicator of food security in Indonesia [2].
Rice production faces challenges due to the high and increasing population [3], land scarcity, and climate change. Its low management level results in a wide yield gap, representing the difference between the actual yield and the attainable yield in rice production [4]. We believe that agroecological nutrient management, combined with the control of paddy field conversion, will be the solution for attaining sustainable rice self-sufficiency in Indonesia.
Agroecological nutrient management refers to a sustainable and holistic approach to managing nutrients in agricultural systems. It involves the integration of ecological principles with agricultural practices to optimize nutrient use efficiency, minimize environmental impacts, and enhance long-term agricultural sustainability. It takes into account the complex interaction between crops, soil, microorganisms, and the environment to promote nutrient cycling, reduce nutrient losses, and improve soil fertility. It is a management approach based on agroecological principles that aim to increase farm productivity through the wise use of external inputs, sustaining ecosystem services, and valorizing ecological processes and ecosystem services [5,6]. This approach reduces reliance on chemical fertilizers and enhances the use of organic matter, biofertilizers, and the efficient use of water [7]. A recent study showed that agroecological nutrient management with a higher input of organic matter increased soil pH, the availability of potassium, calcium, and magnesium, potassium concentration in leaves, and mycorrhizal colonization [8]. Another study that increased reliance on legumes, integrated crop–livestock production, and use of soil amendments resulted in enhanced soil organic matter (and soil carbon) accrual. The effects in the long term were more consistent in terms of increase yields, yield stability, profitability and food security [9]. An agroecological approach is important for restoring degraded lands [5,10] and overcoming the yield gap [4]. Increasing concerns about the loss of natural habitats and biodiversity emphasize the importance of producing more rice on existing cropland by improving the efficiencies of nutrients, energy, water, and other inputs in an agroecological process [5,11,12].
The rice harvest area in Indonesia was about 10.6 million hectares (ha), and unhusked (paddy) rice (subsequently called “rice”) production was about 54.5 million tonnes per year (Mt year−1) (equivalent to 31.4 Mt milled rice—the average for 2020–2021). Rice yield was about 5.2 tonnes per hectare (t ha−1). From 2000 to 2021, Indonesia imported a minimum of 0.25 Mt (in 2009) and a maximum of 2.75 Mt (in 2011) of milled rice. In 2021, the milled rice import was 407,741 tonnes, and the national production was 31.36 Mt (information about the milled rice import and national production is from Indonesia’s Central Bureau of Statistics, www.bps.go.id, accessed on 11 November 2022). This means that Indonesia is barely reaching rice self-sufficiency.
As a populous country, dependence on rice import may make Indonesia vulnerable to international market price fluctuations. Although Dawe (2008) [13] doubted that price volatility and world market price distortion would be significant, the government policy is that national production must be increased to meet demand, and import must be eliminated or kept to a minimum.
Indonesia will likely become more dependent on rice import as its population increases [14] and the effects of climate change and uncontrolled paddy field conversion worsen [15]. The population growth rate in Indonesia may be decreasing with increased education level (population growth data are from World Bank Open Data, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?locations=ID, accessed on 11 November 2022), but it will tend to stay positive until 2050.
The effects of climate change may be intensifying, and will depend on the ability of countries to adapt and comply with their pledges on climate change mitigation as stipulated in the 2021 Glasgow Climate Pact (to learn more about the 2021 Glasgow Climate Pact, see https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/cop26, accessed on 3 January 2023). Meanwhile, controlling paddy field conversion appears to be more and more challenging, not only in Indonesia [16] but also elsewhere in the world [17]. These three factors—population growth, climate change, and land conversion—are obstacles to attaining rice self-sufficiency. Adapting to and mitigating climate change is essential [18], and failing to control rice field conversion will hinder the rice self-sufficiency objective [19].
There are two approaches to increasing rice production: extensification and (sustainable) intensification. Extensification is becoming more and more difficult due to arable land scarcity [19]. Furthermore, the conversion of existing rice-producing areas is occurring at an alarming rate [20], resulting in shrinking paddy field areas. Hence, intensification has a greater opportunity to contribute to increased rice production. The actual average rice yield of about 5.2 t ha−1 is far below the potential yield of irrigated rice, ranging from 8.3 t ha−1 to 11.7 t ha−1, or the rain-fed rice yield, ranging from 7.9 t ha−1 to 12.1 t ha−1 [21]. These data clearly show a great opportunity to close the yield gap to increase national rice production.
Yuan et al. (2022) [14] suggested that yield is attainable up to 80% of potential yield under irrigated or 70% of potential yield under rain-fed rice systems. Increasing yield to above 80% of the potential yield may not be feasible economically, and it may pose a threat to the environment due to the excessive input it requires [11,12].
Nutrient deficiencies and imbalances have been the main problem in Indonesian rice fields [22,23]. This aspect will be discussed as an avenue for narrowing the rice yield gap from a nutrient management perspective. The benefits and feasibility of using biochar are also discussed. The effects of climate change on food security require serious attention; hence, we discuss adaptation and mitigation strategies for managing paddy soils [18]. We also touch upon the problem of paddy field conversion, which may hinder achieving the rice self-sufficiency target. Finally, we provide recommendations to improve the current policy, including the challenges that must be overcome.
This paper presents a literature review of paddy field nutrient management systems, linking them with agroecological principles. It provides an overview of paddy field nutrient status and fertilization and discusses the enhancement of agroecological functions resulting from agroecological nutrient management practices.
We conducted a comprehensive literature review on agroecological nutrient management aimed at achieving rice self-sufficiency in Indonesia. This involved a systematic search and analysis of the available literature, including relevant journals, reports, and scholarly articles related to agroecological approaches to nutrient management for rice cultivation and self-sufficiency in rice production in Indonesia. While we prioritized publications from the last 20 years, older relevant literature was included when necessary.
Our literature search utilized databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and relevant institutional repositories. We used keywords related to agroecology, nutrient management, rice cultivation, rice self-sufficiency, water management, methane emissions, nitrous oxide emissions, biofertilizers, biochar, and Indonesia. The collected literature was screened based on the focus of our review. Key information was extracted from selected studies, and findings were synthesized to identify common trends, challenges, and successful approaches to agroecological nutrient management for achieving rice self-sufficiency. The summarized findings were interpreted in terms of their implications for rice production and self-sufficiency in Indonesia.
Limitations to this review process may arise due to publication bias, in which certain topics might be overrepresented while others are underrepresented, potentially skewing the overall findings. Despite evaluating the robustness of the reviewed studies, variations in the quality and reliability of studies may persist, possibly leaving out crucial developments unsupported by scientific publications or lacking published time series data, especially concerning nutrient status.
Additionally, we offer a brief scenario analysis regarding closing the yield gap, controlling paddy field conversion, and implications for rice self-sufficiency until 2050, including calculations for national rice consumption and land conversion rates.
To the best of our knowledge, no scientific papers have comprehensively discussed various aspects of paddy rice nutrient management systems linked with agroecological principles. Therefore, this paper is relevant not only for Indonesian conditions but also for other countries where lowland rice constitutes a significant agricultural system.

2. Paddy Rice Soils and Their Nutrient Status

2.1. Paddy Rice Soils

About 70% of Indonesian paddy soils belong to the Inceptisol, Entisol, and Vertisol soil orders. Vertisols comprise about 7% of Indonesian paddy soils [24]. About 22% are paddy soils of higher elevation in volcanic areas, and they belong to the Ultisol, Inceptisol, Andisol, and Alfisol orders.
Inceptisols generally have a low pH, low cation exchange capacity (CEC), and low soil organic C and N contents. However, the fertility of Inceptisols derived from alluvium varies depending on the nutrient status of the parent materials. Vertisols have a relatively high pH, high cation exchange capacity (CEC), and high macro- and micronutrient content [24,25]. For example, the percentage of soils with a high K status is high in Central and East Java (Figure 1), where Vertisols are the dominant paddy soils, although management factors could also lead to a high K status. Rice fields of the Vertisol order are high in clay content and hence very likely have a low saturated hydraulic conductivity, which makes the leaching of cations and anions, such as potassium (K+) and nitrate (NO3), typically minimal [25]. This indicates a better nutrient efficiency in Vertisols compared to that in Inceptisols and Ultisols [26]. Ultisols are mostly low in CEC and exchangeable cations [25]; hence, they require relatively high inputs of basic cations.
When the dry (unflooded) land systems are converted to paddy field systems, the soil undergoes physical and chemical transformations. Flooding leads to a decrease in soil redox potential and increases the availability of phosphorus (P) and calcium (Ca) for plant uptake. Further, plow pan forms in paddy fields when soil is compacted by heavy equipment, humans, or animals [27], reducing water loss through percolation and nutrient loss through leaching. C stock tends to increase [28] and soil pH tends to reach near neutrality in paddy soils [29].

2.2. Essential Nutrients

The nutrients N, P, K, Ca, sulfur (S), Mg, C, oxygen (O), and hydrogen (H) are grouped into macronutrients, i.e., nutrients essential to plants, and are needed in relatively large amounts. Of these, Ca, Mg, and S are also called secondary macronutrients because they are needed by plants in relatively smaller amounts than N, P, and K, and are usually applied to the soil from organic matter, lime, and other sources. The macronutrients C, H, and O are abundant in nature and are taken up by plants in the forms of carbon dioxide (CO2), water (H2O), or oxygen (O2) through roots and leaves [30].
Micronutrients such as Zn, Cu, boron (B), manganese (Mn), molybdenum (Mo), Fe, silicon (Si), and chlorine (Cl) are important in metabolic activities and enzymatic processes and help in plant growth and production [31]. Micronutrient availability to plants is regulated by various soil factors, including soil texture, soil pH, organic matter content, clay content, soil moisture, nutrient interactions, microbial activity, redox potential, and aeration [32].
Micronutrient cations, such as Fe, Zn, Cu, and Mn, are either in the soil solution or are adsorbed at soil mineral exchange sites [33,34]. Organic matter is an important secondary source of micronutrients in soil. Soils that receive regular additions of organic residues or manure rarely show micronutrient deficiencies. Incorporating soil amendments and fertilizers into the soil can also contribute to micronutrient availability [32] and micronutrient efficiency [35,36]. Balanced P and K fertilization also improves the micronutrient balance, especially of Zn and Cu [26].
There are two types of lowland rice fields in Indonesia: irrigated and rain-fed rice fields. Irrigated fields are normally flooded during the crop season, with the waterhead two to five centimeters above the soil’s surface. Of the total paddy field area of about 7.4 million ha across Indonesia, about 4 million ha are irrigated [37]. Irrigated paddy fields benefit from a secure water supply and the transport of nutrients from irrigation water, but that is not the case for rain-fed paddy rice areas [38].

2.3. Nutrient Status of Indonesian Paddy Fields

The macronutrients N, P, and K are important for rice production. Among the three, K is the most abundant on the Earth’s surface. However, about 90–98% of this K is in the form of primary minerals that are not available for plant uptake, and only 1–2% of the nutrient is in the form available to plants [39]. In low-activity clay soils, such as most Ultisols and Inceptisols, K can move through the mass flow process and leach from the surface to the lower layers during and after heavy rains. However, in permanent rice systems, K leaching can be minimized by the presence of a plow layer [22].
In soil, N is very mobile and can be easily lost due to evaporation or leaching; it also changes from one form to another, such as ammonium (NH4+) to NO3, nitrous oxide (N2O), or ammonia (NH3). Rice plants are very responsive to the application of N fertilizer, but the fertilizer’s efficiency is very low (i.e., <30%) [40]. Split application of N is a common practice to reduce N loss [26].
In soil, P exists as an inorganic form originating from P-containing minerals (such as apatite) and an organic form originating from organic matter. The availability of P in soil is low because it is bound to clay or organic matter. In soils with a low pH (4–5.5), P is fixed by iron (Fe) and aluminum (Al) oxides, whereas in soils with a high pH (7–8), it is fixed by Ca and Mg. Continuously applying large quantities of P fertilizer may cause P to accumulate in soil. Accumulated P can be taken up by plants if the soil reaction reaches optimal conditions for its release [22].
In the 1990s, rice fields in Java were considered to be saturated with P and K because of the continuous application of triple superphosphate and potassium chloride (KCl). However, a survey in Sumatra, Java, Sulawesi, and Nusa Tenggara indicated a reverse trend, where K application tended to be lower than the crop needed [41].
Nutrient status maps for P and K with scales of 1:50,000 have been compiled for 7259 subdistricts in the 34 provinces of Indonesia [26]. In Figure 1, we present only the high P and high K status maps of Indonesia. This nutrient map was developed based on potential soil P and K extracted with 25% hydrochloric acid (HCl). The P and K statuses were categorized as low (mg kg−1) (<87 P; <83 K), medium (87–174 P; 83–166 K), and high (>174 P; >166 K).
The P status map shows that most paddy fields in Java, Bali and West Nusa Tenggara exhibit high percentages of areas with high P nutrient status, attributed to intensive management in these areas. However, in Sumatra and the western and eastern parts of Kalimantan, most paddy field areas show a low P status, due to high soil acidity and minimal influence of volcanic ash, especially in Kalimantan.
The K status map shows high percentages of paddy fields with high K status in West Java (may be due to management factors). Central Java and East Java also have more areas with a high K nutrient status, whereas NTT, Riau, and South Sulawesi were dominated by low K nutrient content (Figure 1).
Besides nutrient status maps, Indonesia also utilizes a paddy soil test kit (PUTS). PUTSs can be used by extension workers, or even by farmers, to assess soil P and K statuses, and a leaf color chart can be used to determine N status in plant tissue [42,43,44]. Based on PUTSs, NPK fertilizer application is 16–48% more efficient in areas where its application is excessive compared to common farmer fertilizer rates, and the yield increase is 6–13%. As of 2019, around 18,325 PUTSs had been distributed in Indonesia, mainly through government projects and programs as well as a small portion through individual sales [43]. However, efforts are needed to introduce this device to farmer groups in central rice production areas of Indonesia for more efficient and more balanced fertilizer application, i.e., ensuring that plants have access to an adequate supply of each nutrient at every growth stage.
Nutrient status maps are necessary to guide extension services on recommended domains and policymakers on fertilizer distribution. Previously available nutrient status maps for Indonesia were at a scale of 1:250,000, which could be used as a basis for fertilizer distribution at the provincial level. More detailed soil nutrient status maps with a scale of 1:50,000 can now be used as a basis for fertilizer recommendations at subdistrict and village levels [45,46].
Manure and inorganic fertilizers significantly augment soil-available Fe, Mn, Cu, and Zn content. Long-term inputs of organic amendments alter the properties of soil and increase its plant-available micronutrient content [36].

3. Agroecological Nutrient Management

In this section, we discuss several aspects of nutrient management, including soil nutrient status, fertilization using chemical, organic and biofertilizers, as well as other potential nutrients that can be exploited from local sources such as biochar.

3.1. Nitrogen, Phosphorous and Potassium Fertilization

N, P, and K fertilizers are essential for increasing paddy rice yield and national rice production. However, fertilizer applications that are unbalanced and insufficient have contributed to low fertilizer efficiency and are ineffective for increasing crop yield.
Until at least early 2010, the uniform recommendation of 600 kg urea ha−1 (276, N), 300 kg SP-36 ha−1 (47, P), and 150 kg KCl ha−1 (78, K) was still common [47], and this may have led to the excessive or deficient status of some or all nutrients. In early 2020, Indonesia developed a soil nutrient status map at a scale of 1:50,000. In Figure 1, we demonstrate only the map of high-status phosphorous (P) and potassium (K) for Indonesia.
The national level soil test approach in Indonesia classified the soil nutrient status into soils with low soil test P (<87 mg P kg−1), for which the recommended P fertilizer is 17 kg P ha−1. Soils with medium (87–174 mg P kg−1) and high (>174 mg P kg−1) P status are recommended to have 13 and 11 kg ha−1 P fertilizer, respectively. Likewise, soils with low (<83 g kg−1 K), medium (83–166 g kg−1 K) and high (>166 g kg−1 K) soil test K are recommended to have K fertilizer in amounts of 38, 30, and 25 kg ha−1, respectively (Table 1).
Rice straw serves as an important source of K, allowing for a reduction in K application to half the recommended dose (only 30 kg K ha−1) in cases of low soil K status, or a complete waiver in cases of medium and high K status soil [26].
Nitrogen (N) fertilization is based on yield target, whereby N rates are 112.5, 135, and 157.5 kg ha−1 to attain yield targets of <6, 6–8, and >8 t ha−1, respectively (Table 2) [26].
Plant tissue analysis, also known as plant tissue testing, is recommended to complement soil tests or soil nutrient status maps. By measuring the nutrient level in the plant tissue, one can evaluate nutrient deficiency or nutrient surplus and address these imbalance problems accordingly. When farmers encounter unexplained issues with a plant, such as stunted growth or discolorization, tissue analysis can provide valuable information to diagnose these problems [48].
Plant tissue tests can complement soil tests. Plant tissue test results are compared against specific nutrient critical levels to guide fertilization practices aimed at adjusting plant tissue nutrient concentrations to meet these critical levels. For instance, Dobermann and Fairhurst (2000) [49] proposed critical levels of N, P and K for rice at 2.2%, 0.20%, and 1.4%, respectively.
In a study on nutrient sufficiency, P. Grassini [50] analyzed the concentrations of N, P, and K in rice plant tissues from samples collected in major paddy field production areas. The findings showed higher concentrations of N and P, but lower concentrations of K than the critical levels. This discovery emphasizes the necessity of regularly conducting soil tests in conjunction with plant tissue tests.

3.2. Micronutrient Fertilization

One of the most limiting factors in rice tillering and spikelet sterility is Zn deficiency. The critical level of Zn in soil is 0.8 milligrams (mg) kg−1 using diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA) extraction [49]. In soil, Zn deficiency causes stunted plant growth and reduces crop yield [51,52]. The recommended dose for Zn fertilization is 5–10 kg Zn ha−1 and can be applied in the form of zinc oxide (ZnO), zinc chloride (ZnCl), or zinc sulfate (ZnSO4) [53], or by dipping rice roots into a solution of 0.05% ZnSO4 for five minutes [52]. Zn deficiency can also be alleviated by recycling rice straw because 60% of Zn in plant tissues is stored in straw [49].
Copper plays an important role in N, protein, and hormone metabolisms; photosynthesis and respiration; pollen formation; and activating the ligninolitic enzymes [49]. Cu deficiency affects grain formation, causes chlorosis and a loss of turgor in young leaves, and may favor the incidence of disease outbreak [51,52]. As much as 5–10 kg Cu ha−1 can be applied for a five-year period, or rice seedling roots or rice seeds can be soaked in 1% copper sulfate (CuSO4) solution for one hour [49].
Plants require B for carbohydrate metabolism, sugar transport, lignification, nucleotide synthesis, respiration, germination, and seed production extraction [44]. It is essential for the germination of pollen grains, the growth of pollen tubes, and seed and cell wall formation, and it promotes plant maturity [33]. Boron deficiency reduces plant height and may lead to the failure of panicle formation [52] and light chlorosis, the death of growing points, and deformed leaves with areas of discoloration [51].
In plants, Fe promotes the formation of chlorophyll. The reactions associated with Fe include the redox reactions of chloroplasts, mitochondria, and peroxisome [54]. The critical limit of Fe is less than 5 mg kg−1 soil (using DTPA + calcium chloride [CaCl2], pH 7.3 extraction). This condition is generally found in alkaline soils or in soils with a very high Fe-to-P ratio [49]. A deficiency of Fe can be seen as chlorosis or yellowing between the veins of young leaves [51].
Manganese functions as a part of certain enzyme systems. It helps in chlorophyll synthesis and also increases the availability of P and Ca. It has similar properties to Mg and can substitute for Mg in some enzyme systems [54]. The optimum Mn concentration in plants also decreases the incidence of diseases. A deficiency of Mn is characterized by chlorosis or yellowing between the veins of new leaves [51].
Molybdenum is required in the smallest amount of all the essential micronutrients. It is required to form the “nitrate reductase” enzyme, which reduces NO3 to NH4+ in plants and is the first step of incorporating inorganic NO into organic N compounds. Other functions of Mo are present in nitrogenase (N fixation) and nitrate reductase enzymes; it plays an important role in plant nodulation and is needed to convert inorganic phosphates to organic forms in plants [33]. A deficiency of Mo results in a disrupted N metabolism [54].
Chlorine is required for turgor regulation, electrical charge balance, resisting diseases, and photosynthesis reactions [33]. A deficiency of Cl may cause chlorosis and wilting in young leaves [51].
Silicon is beneficial to the mechanical and physiological properties of plants and helps them overcome biotic and abiotic stresses. It enhances root water uptake, which helps regulate aquaporin activity and gene expression [55,56]. In addition, Si provides resistance against pathogens and pests as well as tolerance of droughts and heavy metals, and enhances quality and yield [51].
Most micronutrients can be supplied by organic matter [57]; hence, it is good practice to utilize organic matter where available. Although irrigation water can also contain micronutrients, care must be taken with water quality, especially for nonconventional irrigation water sources, because the water may contain heavy metals and other harmful elements [58].

3.3. Enhanced Use of Organic Fertilizers

Organic fertilizers can be used in the form of organic matter, biofertilizers, or bioorganic fertilizers.

3.3.1. Organic Matter

Organic matter plays an important role in enhancing soil properties and crop yield. The level of organic matter in soil can be increased by adding high-quality organic matter, such as composted plant residues or barnyard manure, into rice soils. Organic matter has many beneficial functions for soil, such as increasing soil water-holding capacity, improving soil structure, releasing macro- and micronutrients, improving soil biological activities, and increasing soil carbon stock [26,59,60]. For example, the application of 2 t ha−1 dry weight of manure would provide about 16 kg N, 14 kg P, 31 kg K, and 16 kg Ca [61], in addition to other macro- and micronutrients. Organic matter application can increase organic C content from 0.78% to 0.83%, as well as increase soil CEC. Meanwhile, the application of 5 t ha−1 rice straw containing 9 kg N and 26 kg K increased the rice grain yield from 2.39 t ha−1 to 4.14 t ha−1 compared to plots without rice straw recycling [62].
Rice straw typically contains 0.5% to 0.8% N, 0.07% to 0.12% P, and 1.16% to 1.65% K [63]. If all the rice straw yield (at a national average of 5 t ha−1) is recycled, this equates to recycling 25 kg ha−1 to 40 kg ha−1 of N, 3.5 kg ha−1 to 5.9 kg ha−1 of P, and 58 kg ha−1 to 83 kg ha−1 of K per crop season. Almost 80% of K absorbed by rice plants is stored in rice straw. Therefore, it is highly recommended to return straw to the paddy field to prevent potassium depletion and provide a substantial amount of N, as well as a decent amount of P [26].
However, under saturated conditions, the addition of fresh organic matter may induce methane (CH4) emissions. Furthermore, the application of easily decomposable organic matter, such as that containing high carbohydrates, can enhance N microbial immobilization. Conversely, the addition of organic matter containing high cellobiose and cellulose (intermediately decomposable compounds) will lead to a lower rate of N immobilization. On the contrary, when the added organic matter is dominated by recalcitrant compounds, such as lignins and tannins, it does not affect N immobilization. Notably, the C-to-N ratio per se is not a determinant of N immobilization [64].
Before applying organic fertilizers to soil, partially decomposed straw (compost) is recommended. Straw composting can be accelerated by adding N to reduce the C-to-N ratio. The decomposition process can also be accelerated by adding molasses to the windrows of straw [65]. This allows decomposition to take place in situ, hence reducing the labor needed for processing. By doing so, transportation costs and associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions can be reduced. Combining the use of organic fertilizers and inorganic fertilizers can increase rice yield significantly compared to only organic manure application [31,66].
Ando et al. (2022) [66] reported that applying inorganic fertilizer (NPK) with a proper amount of slaked lime (Ca(OH)2) and rice straw compost is the most efficient fertilizer management system in paddy soils. Further, the application of lime and the recycling of straw increased rice yield, likely due to their effect on soil fertility and plant N uptake [67]. Another study also reported that incorporating rice straw or crop residues enhances both soil organic carbon (SOC) content and soil health, ameliorates climate change, and also increases beneficial soil microbe activities [68,69]. Rice straw application increased soil microbial respiration in the rhizosphere because it functions as a substrate and energy source for microbes [69]. Applying rice straw in combination with inorganic N fertilizer (80% N through rice straw and 20% through mineral fertilizer) resulted in maximum enzymatic activity compared to only crop residue or only mineral fertilizer application [68].

3.3.2. Biofertilizers

Biofertilizers are microorganisms capable of increasing nutrient availability and improving soil health. The use of biofertilizers can increase soil nutrient availability and can also reduce soil pathogens [69]. The following sections discuss several types of biofertilizers that have been developed in Indonesia.

3.3.3. N-Fixing Biofertilizer

N-fixing biofertilizer comprises the beneficial miroorganisms that convert N2 into NH3 [70]. The process of converting N2 into NH3 via diazotrophic microbes allows the total N content to be replenished and the fixed N regulates crop growth and yield [71]. N-fixing biofertilizer has been demonstrated in free-living microorganisms with anaerobic fixation (e.g., Clostridium pasteurianum) and aerobic fixation (e.g., Azotobacter chroococcum). Other prokaryotic organisms include cyanobacteria and archaebacteria. Symbiosis in the root systems of nonleguminous plants (e.g., Frankia spp.) and leguminous plants (e.g., Rhizobium and Bradyrhizobium) and an associative fixation between nonsymbiotic microorganisms (e.g., Azospirillum spp.) growing on the root systems of nonleguminous plants, but without forming nodules, also increases N availability to plants [70]. N-fixing groups also include green S bacteria, firmibacteria, actinomycetes, and proteobacteria. Nitrogenase is the key enzyme that carries out the conversion of dinitrogen into NH3 during the process of N fixation [70,71].
Biological nitrogen fixation plays an important role in restoring soil fertility and ecosystem sustainability. N-fixing bacteria can provide 50–70 kg N-urea ha−1 to crops [72] and is important for restoring agroecological functions and reducing the yield gap in staple food production by increasing soil fertility and generating income for farmers [73].
A study by Razie and Anas (2008) [74] showed that Azotobacter and Azospirillum inoculation increased rice growth with their ability to fix N2 from the atmosphere. The increase in the total N content of soil was followed by an increase in the total N content of the plant tissue. Azotobacter spp. and Azospirillum spp. also increase root and shoot growth in rice plants. When Azotobacter is used as a biofertilizer and is combined with 50% NPK fertilization, it significantly increases the growth and production of grain and matches the growth and production of grain with 100% NPK fertilization [75].
N-fixing blue-green algae (BGA), such as Nostoc sp., Anabaena sp., Tolypothrix sp., and Aulosira sp., have the potential to fix N2 and are used in paddy fields [76]. BGA are photosynthetic prokaryotic microorganisms which are capable of N fixation because they contain nitrogenase. They also benefit rice plants by producing growth-promoting substances [77]. BGA may contribute 30–40 kg N ha−1 to the ecosystem. Grain yield increased from 2000 kg ha−1 to 2300 kg ha−1 with algalization, and from 3000 kg ha−1 to 3200 kg ha−1 under the treatment of 50 kg Urea-N ha−1 with algalization. In general, algal inoculation (where effective) increases yield by about 14% [78]. In the plants treated with BGA, N uptake was higher than those of the untreated control [77]. A study by Setiawati et al., 2020 [79], demonstrated that the application of green manure increased soil N content from 0.10% to 0.20% and organic C content from 0.8% to 2.0%.
The application of a 50% dose of NPK fertilizer, along with 7 t ha−1 of Azolla and 25 t ha−1 of a compound biofertilizer containing Azotobacter, Azospirillum, N-fixing bacteria, and P-solubilizing bacteria, matched the yield of full-dose NPK fertilizers. This implies that Azolla and the compound biofertilizers compensated for about 50% of N, P and K needs, relative to a full NPK dose (138 kg ha−1 of N, 7.8 kg ha−1 of P, and 41 kg ha−1 of K) [80].
Study by Setiawati et al., 2020 [79] reported that using 10 t ha−1 of goat manure and 10 t ha−1 of goat manure in combination with either 10 t ha−1 of Azolla or 2 t ha−1 Sesbania green manure, or 5 t ha−1 Azolla plus 1 t ha−1 Sesbania green manure, did not show a significantly different response of rice grain yield, ranging from 4.4 to 5.8 t ha−1. This implies that nutrients supplied by 10 t ha−1 goat manure sufficed for the crop’s needs, and that additional green manure was not necessary with such a high-level goat manure application.
Similarly, another study [81] using either 10 t ha−1 or 20 t ha−1 fresh Azolla pinnata or powdered compost of either 2.5 or 5 of Azolla pinnata did not affect rice grain yield relative to the control treatment without Azolla application. This pot study applied blanket fertilizers equivalent to 46 kg ha−1 of N, 8 kg ha−1 of P, and 41 kg ha−1 of K.
In general, however, when paddy fields are inoculated with BGA, rice grain yield increases by 7% to 22% [82,83,84,85].

3.3.4. Phosphate-Solubilizing Microbes

Phosphate-solubilizing microorganisms (PSMs) play a critical role in the soil’s P cycle. They achieve this by mineralizing organic P, solubilizing inorganic P minerals, and storing a significant amount of P in biomass [86,87].
PSMs, whether phosphate-solubilizing bacteria (PSB) or phosphate-solubilizing fungi (PSF), produce organic acids such as citric acid, glutamate, succinate, lactate, oxalate, glyoxylate, malate, fumarate, tartrate, and α-ketobutyrate. These acids can bind Ca, Al, and Fe, facilitating phosphate availability to plants in the form of dihydrogen phosphate (H2PO4) [88].
PSMs isolated from bulk soils and rhizospheres have been shown to hydrolyze P by releasing phosphatases, playing a major role in P mineralization in most soils [86]. Puspitawati and Anas (2013) [89] succeeded in isolating PSM capable of dissolving phosphate sources such as calcium phosphate [Ca3(PO4)2], aluminum phosphate (AlPO4), and ferric phosphate (FePO4), increasing the solubility of P from 65% to 135%. The application of PSM to paddy soils significantly increased rice plant growth and P uptake, and reduced chemical P fertilizer usage by up to 50%.

3.3.5. K-Solubilizing Microbes

One way to increase the solubility of K from K-containing minerals or rocks involves the use of K-solubilizing microbes (KSMs), including K-solubilizing bacteria or K-solubilizing fungi. Various groups of rhizobacteria and fungi are involved with the solubilization of K minerals in the soil system [90]. A consortium of rhizobacteria, including Bacillus edaphicus, Bacillus mucilaginosus, Bacillus circulans, Acidothiobacillus ferrooxidans, Paenibacillus sp., Pseudomonas, and Burkholderia demonstrates effective K-solubilizing abilities [90]. Aspergillus terreus also exhibits a high capacity to dissolve minerals and rocks containing K. These microbes are ubiquitous, and their presence depends on structure, texture, organic matter, and related soil properties [90,91].
Overall, biofertilizers that have been well developed in paddy fields include free-living or symbiotic microbes which help N fixation and PSMs. Among the various biofertilizers, N-fixing microbes (i.e., BGA) are some of the most commonly used and can increase grain yield by 200–450 kg ha−1 [78]. Scaling up their application is an important strategy for increasing rice yield.

3.3.6. Bioorganic Fertilizers

Bioorganic fertilizers are organic fertilizers that are improved by adding beneficial microbes such as N2 fixers, PSMs, KSMs, and antagonistic microbes. Bioorganic fertilizers are used to reduce chemical fertilizer use, improve soil properties, and reduce environmental pollution.
The application of rice straw enriched with Azotobacter was able to reduce the use of NPK fertilizers by 25%. The use of organic straw fertilizer enriched with Azotobacter without artificial fertilizers increased soil NO3 and NH4+. The use of rice straw enriched with Azotobacter and a 100% dose of NPK fertilizers was able to increase the rice grain harvest compared to the application of N, P, and K without organic fertilizer [76]. Bioorganic fertilizers reduced inorganic fertilizer use by about 25–30% and increased rice yield by about 25% [92]. The application of 50% NPK and bioorganic fertilizer increased 2.35 t ha−1 grain yield and 3.39 t ha−1 straw yield compared to the application of 50% NPK without bioorganic fertilizer. This yield increase was attributed to the supply of P and K from organic fertilizers and the increased availability of these nutrients due to the solubilizing microbes.

3.4. Other Locally Exploitable Nutrient Sources

Besides chemical and organic fertilizers, there are many other sources of nutrients, including soil ameliorants such as agricultural lime, biochar, and crushed natural minerals, also called stonemeal.
Lime, especially dolomitic lime, has been widely used in Indonesia. Dolomitic lime can improve the microbial activity of acidic soils and increase crop yields [93,94]. Besides providing Ca and Mg, dolomitic lime also increases soil nutrient availability, such as N, and P, in acid soils [94,95,96].
Liming and applying straw increased soil N availability and the activities of soil enzymes involved in both C and N cycling and, hence, rice yield [67]. The application of dolomitic limestone increased K, Ca, Mg, and Mn content in the leaves [97]. Additionally, calcite or dolomite lime can be used as a soil amendment on rain-fed paddy fields with a low pH or low Ca and Mg contents [40]. Lime application also can reduce cadmium (Cd) and lead (Pb) accumulation in rice [98,99,100,101,102].
Biochar is a char produced from organic matter via thermal processing under depleted O2 concentrations (pyrolysis) [103,104]. Applying biochar in combination with cattle manure increased soil organic C; CEC; available P; exchangeable K, Ca, and Mg; and nutrient uptake by crops [105]. Biochar also can be used as a soil amendment in acidic soils to improve soil P and reduce exchangeable Al and soluble Fe, as well as to significantly increase rice biomass [106] and yield [107].
Biochar improves soil’s physical, chemical, and biological properties. Biochar improves soil’s chemical properties by increasing nutrient retention and availability. Biochar decreases soil bulk density and increases saturated hydraulic conductivity. Incorporating biochar into soil increases the microbial population in the microsphere because the biochar surface changes soil conditions and makes it favorable for microbial activity in the soil [108,109].
Rice husk biochar (RHB) contains 1.12 mg kg−1 of N, 0.98 mg kg−1 of P, 184 mg kg−1 of Mg, 168 mg kg−1 of Si, 225 mg kg−1 of Ca, and 176 mg kg−1 of K. Therefore, its application to the soil improves the soil’s nutrient status. The application of 10 t ha−1 RHB significantly increases rice grain yield to 4.6 t ha−1 compared to 2.6 t ha−1 under the control treatment without biochar. Both the RHB and control plots received 25 kg ha−1 of K, 26 kg ha−1 of P, and 150 kg ha−1 of N [110]. Another study using rice straw biochar resulted in 20–22% higher rice grain yield [111].
Stonemeal (i.e., ground stone containing high amounts of K and other macro- and micronutrients) has not been widely exploited in Indonesia. Considering the high price of conventional K fertilizer (KCl), the use of stonemeal seems promising. Stonemeal can rejuvenate nutrient-poor soils because some types of stonemeal are rich in K, P, Ca, Mg, and various micronutrients [112,113].
Indonesia possesses K-bearing minerals, such as K-feldspar and leucite (an aluminosilicate mineral), that contain most essential nutrients, including 4–20% of K [96]. Various techniques such as mechanochemistry, leaching, alkali fusion, and bioleaching can process these minerals into K fertilizers [114]. In Pati Regency, Central Java, Indonesia, K-bearing rocks are prevalent in alkaline and subalkaline formations characterized by low silica content and high alkalinity. These formations, including leucite, plagioclase, pyroxene, and opaque minerals, exhibit a potassium oxide (K2O) content between 1.94% and 8.61% [115]. This aligns with a prior study in Pati Regency noting K2O content between 1.92% and 8.79% in leucite, augite, pyroxene, quartz, and sanidine rocks [116].
It will be necessary to conduct a survey of basic cation-rich (especially K) minerals, followed by field testing and an economic feasibility assessment of stonemeal. If this study proves successful, its potential application extends not only to paddy rice but also to other agricultural sectors, such as oil palm and other intensively managed crops.

3.5. Improved Water Management Systems

Sustainable intensification to increase food security will require proper water management in addition to the use of high-yielding varieties and agronomic practices [117,118]. To increase water availability and mitigate the effects of drought in agricultural areas, irrigation management will need to be improved, as will the management of proper planting time [119,120,121,122]. Water is responsible for increased agricultural production, so it is crucially important to improve irrigation and water use efficiency [123].
The System of Rice Intensification (SRI) is one water use efficiency strategy [124,125,126]. The SRI emerged from on-farm experimentation in Madagascar, where existing norms of paddy rice were radically amended by reducing planting density, improving soil with organic matter, reducing the application of water, and the early transplantation of rice seedlings. Organic fertilizers are used in addition to chemicals. The SRI can increase N and P availability and soil microbial C activity [127,128]. The SRI method has a positive influence on rice root development, optimizing nutrient absorption in the soil [129]. Rice growth and production is better under the SRI than conventional rice cultivation [130,131,132], as shown in Table 3.
The SRI improves plant physiological processes and characteristics, including longer panicles, more grains per panicle, a higher proportion of grain filling, deeper and better distributed root systems, and a higher number and larger leaves [132,136], as well as improved water-use efficiency [136,137].
However, despite the voluminous research data showing the dramatic advantages of the SRI, its adoption at farmer level is sluggish because the method requires significant additional labor input and specific management techniques that are challenging for smallholders [134]. Some studies have also reported no significant increase in paddy yields under the SRI compared to conventional rice management systems [135]. Incentives for SRI implementation are lacking; SRI rice does not command a premium price and it requires greater water regulation efforts than conventional systems [120,138]. Controversies persist in the literature regarding the associated benefits of grain yield and the SRI’s reduced water use [139,140,141].
From the above discussion, it is clear that the overall principle of improving agroecological function to increase crop yield can be reached by improving nutrient balance, optimizing soil biological activities, increasing soil organic matter content, and improving the efficiency of agricultural input and water management.

3.6. Farming Systems and Crop Rotation

In an agroecological nutrient management system for paddy rice, diverse crop rotations can benefit soil health, nutrient cycling, and overall sustainability. In irrigated paddy rice systems in Indonesia, there are typically two to three crops per year. The third crop usually consists of secondary crops such as maize, soybean, peanut, or various vegetable crops [16]. This third crop improves nutrient utilization, cuts off pest and disease pressure, and increases overall yield and diversity. For instance, rotating lowland (flooded) rice with upland (oxic) maize improves root colonization by Archaea and bacteria [142].
Azolla, a water fern, can be used as green manure in paddy fields. Its symbiotic association with the cyanobacterium Anabaena azollae enables it to fix nitrogen from the atmosphere. Azolla is either incorporated into the soil before rice transplantation or grown as a dual crop along with rice [143]. It contributes to nitrogen supply, as discussed in Section 3.3.
The ‘Minapadi’, or rice–fish farming system, can be an effective rice farming system for increasing profitability if up to 4 t ha−1 of compost is added [144]. Rice–duck culture is another example of an integrated farming system in paddy rice [145]. Ducks feed on weeds, dead leaves and pests (such as plant hoppers and leafhoppers) in the field, during which process they stir up the water and soil and fertilize the field so that soil nutrients are increased and the need for the application of fertilizers and pesticides is lowered [146]. Furthermore, rice–fish–duck is a promising ingenious system worth testing [147].
The key to success in these farming systems is to tailor crop rotations based on local agroecological conditions, crop compatibility, and the specific needs of the rice paddy system. Diversified rotations help maintain soil fertility, reduce pest and disease pressure, and improve overall resilience in paddy rice agriculture.
Summarizing Section 3 on agroecological nutrient management, the use of chemical (synthetic) fertilizers remains vital for national level rice production to ensure nutrient sufficiency. Indonesia’s recent soil nutrient status map [26] facilitated tailored recommendations, specifying fertilizer rates at subdistrict level based on soil test results for phosphorous (P) and potassium (K) statuses. Nitrogen (N) fertilization aligns with yield targets for optimal levels. For more detailed site-specific recommendations, the use of a soil test kit is recommended. Complementing soil tests, plant tissue analysis aids in diagnosing nutrient deficiencies or surpluses, and is crucial for addressing productivity issues.
However, apart from synthetic fertilizer application, there are other sources of macro- and micronutrients, as well as materials that can enhance nutrient recycling. These include organic matter, biofertilizers, and other local nutrient sources such as biochar, lime, and stonemeal. These supplementary nutrient sources can not only reduce dependence on synthetic fertilizers, but also improve soil health and provide various agroecological functions (see Section 4). The ability of these alternative nutrient sources to supply or recycle nutrients varies. Table 4 shows potential amounts of nutrient contributions from these alternative sources.

4. Improvement in Agroecological Functions

The agroecological management of paddy rice fields not only benefits crop growth and production, but also contributes to climate change mitigation, improves paddy system adaptation to climate change, and facilitates nutrient recycling [18,148].

4.1. Mitigation and Adaptation to Climate Change

4.1.1. Mitigation

Several management systems contribute to reducing GHG emissions, including the System of Rice Intensification (SRI), biochar application, organic matter application, and the planting of low-methane-emission varieties. The planting of low-methane-emission varieties is not discussed here as it is beyond the scope of this article, but readers can find a list of such varieties in Agus et al. 2022 [18].
GHG emissions (especially CH4) of nearly 50 Mt carbon dioxide equivalent per year from paddy rice cultivation is the highest among emissions from the agricultural sector in Indonesia. Emissions of N2O are also suspected to be high from paddy rice systems because of the high rate of N application in intensive rice areas [18,28]. These N2O emissions fluctuate because of wetting and drying [149,150] resulting from alternate anaerobic and aerobic conditions, the condition favorable for N2O gas formation [18]. However, the increased N2O released during drying is compensated by decreased CH4 emissions. Hence, it is the length of the submergence period of a paddy rice field that really determines CH4 emissions, while the rate of N application is most important for N2O emissions [151]. When the paddy field is drained, CH4 emissions decrease by about 1.22 kg ha−1 day−1 in the drained condition.
The SRI, with a higher number of unflooded days, offers significant CH4 emission reductions. The longer flooded soil conditions of the conventional rice system lead to the higher activity of methanogen (CH4-producing bacteria) compared to the prolonged aerobic conditions in the SRI [152]. Research demonstrates substantially lower seasonal CH4 emissions in the SRI (20 kg ha−1) in contrast to conventional systems (32 kg ha−1) [153]. However, the frequent draining of SRI plots leads to intermittent aerobic soil conditions, potentially increasing N2O emissions compared to flooded fields [149,150]. Yet, other studies have reported reduced N2O emissions in the SRI [154,155,156].
Biochar has become increasingly popular because of its long residence time and, hence, conservation of C in soils [157,158,159,160]. For example, the application of 25 t ha−1 of biochar increased soil C stock from about 35 t ha−1 to about 57 t ha−1 [161]. Similar results were found in the study of Sui et al. (2016) [162].
A study by Shen et al. (2014) [159] reported that the application of straw-derived biochar (22.5–48 t ha−1) decreased CH4 emissions. Another study also reported that the application of biochar amendment with N fertilizer may be a beneficial strategy to reduce net N2O and CH4 emissions from paddy rice [160].
The application of organic fertilizer can significantly reduce GHG emissions. Specifically, the use of manure decreases N2O emissions by about 4.98 kg ha−1 [163]. This aligns with other research where plots treated with rice straw and manure exhibited reductions in N2O emissions by 43% and 28%, respectively [164]. Win et al., 2021 [165], reported that cow dung manure reduced CH4 emissions by 9.5% and N2O emissions by 33.7% compared to the control. Additionally, the application of rice straw, poultry manure and sugarcane bagasse resulted in decreased N2O emissions, offering mitigation in rice paddies [166]. The average annual N2O emissions from plots receiving 50% inorganic N fertilizer and pig manure were 51% lower than those from the 100% N treatment [167]. Furthermore, compared with the NPK treatment, the application of organic fertilizer alone led to a significant 32% reduction in N2O emissions [168].
Another study revealed that applying fresh and composted rice straw can reduce N2O emissions by 49% and 60%, respectively [169]. In areas where N application is traditionally excessive (e.g., due to the high subsidy of N fertilizers), improving the efficiency of N use can reduce N2O emissions [170].
Furthermore, paddy rice cultivation also mitigates climate change by increasing soil C stock by about 35% of its initial level over 20 years [28].

4.1.2. Adaptation

Climate change is characterized by (i) erratic weather patterns, including changes in rainfall, increased frequency of extreme events like floods or droughts, and rising temperatures; (ii) rising sea levels, posing a risk of salinization in low-lying paddy fields, impacting soil fertility and crop growth; and (iii) outbreaks of pests and diseases, which threaten rice yields. These three factors heighten vulnerability in paddy fields and hinder the potential for increasing rice yield. Therefore, adapting to climate change is crucial in Indonesia to effectively manage these climate-related risks [171].
Agroecological nutrient management plays a pivotal role in enhancing resilience in paddy farming against climate change because balanced fertilization improves crop vigor, and in turns contributes significantly to a plant’s resilience against the impacts of climate change. Vigorous crops exhibit better tolerance to drought, extreme temperatures, and changes in precipitation patterns. They can better withstand periods of water scarcity or excess, temperature fluctuations, and other environmental stresses. Vigorous plants tend to also have stronger immune systems, making them more resistant to diseases and less susceptible to pest infestations. When faced with stress, vigorous crops can recover more efficiently. They might bounce back quicker after a period of drought, heat stress, or other adverse conditions, allowing for a better chance of successful growth and yield [18,148].
Efficient water management through techniques like alternate wetting and drying (AWD) reduces water usage while maintaining or improving yields. AWD helps adaptation to erratic rainfall patterns by allowing farmers to adjust water levels based on plant needs.
Diversifying crops in rotation helps soil fertility maintenance and pest and disease control, and reduces dependence on single-crop cultivation. This practice enhances the resilience of rice farming against climate-induced risks. Furthermore, practices such as organic fertilization and cover cropping improve soil structure and water retention capacity, making fields more resilient to droughts and floods [18,169].
By implementing these agroecological practices, paddy farmers can enhance their resilience to climate change. Water-efficient techniques minimize the impact of changing rainfall patterns, while crop rotation and soil health improvement methods reduce vulnerability to pest outbreaks and enhance overall farm resilience. These strategies collectively improve the adaptability of paddy farming to uncertainties due to climate change in Indonesia.

4.1.3. Mitigation and Adaptation Synergy

Mitigation strategies show their effectiveness within the framework of climate-smart agriculture (CSA). CSA aims to reduce GHG emissions while simultaneously enhancing a system’s resilience to climate change, thereby enabling increased crop production or, at the least, maintaining current levels despite climate change [18,172]. Central to CSA is integrated soil health management, such as integrated soil organic matter and nutrient management, which serves to preempt issues associated with climate change and bolster agroecosystem resilience [172]. This approach integrates agricultural development to ensure food security and enable adaptation to climate change. For instance, optimizing nitrogen fertilizer use not only reduces nitrous oxide emissions but also enhances crop resilience against pests and diseases. Another example is alternate wetting and drying, which curtails methane emissions while conserving water for redistribution during dry periods [18,173].
Overall, CSA can be applied to improve and maintain soil health and increase crop production and the resilience of soil ecosystems against the adverse effects of climate change.

4.2. Nutrient Recycling

Agroecological management also optimizes nutrient recycling and organic matter turnover [174]. Nutrient cycling is a vital ecosystem process by which available forms of nutrients move and exchange from the environment into living organisms and are subsequently recycled back into the environment [175]. The cycling of nutrients between soil, plants, and animals is a dynamic and continuous process. Chemical elements such as C, O, H, S, N, and P are essential for life, and their recycling is crucial for sustaining plant growth and yield [175].
Microbes in the soil play a dynamic role in releasing mineral nutrients through organic matter decomposition and mineral recycling. These mineralized nutrients are then absorbed by plant roots along with water, contributing to the creation of new organic material [175]. They are also crucial in maintaining soil structure and quality for sustainable plant growth.
Healthy soil acts as a dynamic living system that delivers multiple ecosystem services. Improved nutrient recycling is one of the important services in agroecological nutrient management [176].

4.3. Water Conservation

Indonesia is blessed with a range of annual rainfall, varying from around 800 mm in East Nusa Tenggara to more than 4000 mm in Sumatra, Java, and Papua (rainfall data can be accessed from BMKG, https://dataonline.bmkg.go.id/home, accessed on 3 January 2023). These substantial rainfall amounts, alongside its water bodies, facilitate both irrigated and rain-fed paddy farming. However, water availability for paddy fields is compromised due to the discontinuity of irrigation networks caused by growing urbanization and industrialization, leading to the damage and discontinuity of irrigation networks [177]. Furthermore, approximately 46% of irrigation systems in Indonesia have deteriorated due to aging infrastructure [177]. Urban and industrial developments near paddy field areas also pose a threat of hazardous chemical contamination [177,178]. Climate change can cause changes in rainfall patterns, including a higher frequency of extreme rainfall, and could further negatively affect water availability and agricultural infrastructure [179], especially in rain-fed areas. However, water-efficient farming practices like alternate wetting and drying (AWD), precision irrigation, and improved water management practices can conserve water in rice cultivation. A review by Ishfaq et al. (2020) concluded that AWD can save between 25% and 70% of water use without reducing yields [180].

4.4. Biodiversity Conservation

The implementation of agroecological nutrient management, as explained in Section 3, emphasizes the importance of using a proper and balanced amount of synthetic fertilizers, enhancing the use of organic fertilizers to compensate for a portion of nutrient requirements, incorporating biofertilizers, and utilizing natural nutrient sources to maintain soil fertility and crop productivity while minimizing environmental impacts. This approach conserves the biodiversity of microorganisms, which significantly contributes to overall ecosystem health, including soil organisms, insects, and various aquatic flora and fauna, such as diverse bird species, amphibians, and aquatic plants.
Moreover, the agroecological nutrient management system promotes beneficial organisms like pollinators and natural predators of pests, thus contributing to biodiversity. Additionally, farming systems and crop rotation, as outlined in Section 3.6, create varied habitats for different species, thereby enhancing overall biodiversity. This diversity includes various bird species like egrets, herons, and ducks, fish, frogs, beneficial insects such as ladybugs and lacewings, a range of aquatic plants, and soil-dwelling organisms like earthworms, beneficial bacteria, and fungi [181].

5. Intensification and Control of Paddy Field Conversion

To keep pace with the increasing population, agricultural production needs to be increased [182]. However, many countries are facing problems related to the rapid conversion of paddy fields and insignificant increases in rice yield [14,183], leading to a widening gap between rice need and production. These two problems must be overcome simultaneously to achieve self-sufficiency targets.
Indonesia’s paddy field conversion rate, analyzed by high-resolution remote sensing techniques (including IKONOS, QuickBird, or Worldview), is alarming at 96,500 ha year−1. If this trend continues, the total paddy field area of 7.46 million ha in 2019 [184] will decrease to around 5.2 million ha by 2045 [16].
The rice yield data from Indonesia’s national statistics agency (rice yield data are from the Central Bureau of Statistics, https://bps.go.id, accessed on 10 January 2023) show an average yield increase of 0.04 t ha−1 year−1, from around 4.4 t ha−1 in 1993 to 5.2 t ha−1 in 2022. This yield level can further be increased by implementing sustainable intensification to attain a yield of 7.28 t ha−1 year−1, which is 80% of the yield potential of 9.1 t ha−1 [14,185].
To demonstrate the importance of yield increase and the control of land conversion, a two-variable scenario analysis is conducted as follows:
  • Rice yield increase scenario:
  • Y_BAU = The yield, starting at 5.2 t ha−1 in 2022, increases 40 kg ha−1 yr−1 in accordance with the historical (business as usual, BAU) trend (see the Central Bureau of Statistics for more information, https://bps.go.id, accessed on 10 January 2023).
  • Y_80% = The yield, starting at 5.2 t ha−1 in 2022, increases 74 kg ha−1 yr−1 to attain 80% of the yield potential of 9.1 t ha−1 (7.3 t ha−1) in 2050 (Yuan et al., 2022) [14].
  • Paddy field conversion scenario:
  • C96.5 = The business-as-usual (BAU) level of paddy field conversion of 96,500 ha year−1.
  • C60 = The medium level of paddy field conversion of 60,000 ha year−1.
  • C30 = The optimistic low level of paddy field conversion of 30,000 ha year−1.
The average cropping intensity is fixed at 1.43 (cropping intensity data are from the Central Bureau of Statistics, https://bps.go.id, accessed on 10 January 2023), and the annual per capita consumption is fixed at 110 kg milled rice. Milled rice yield is fixed at 0.576 of the unhusked rice, and population growth is assumed at 0.5% annually, starting from 280 million in 2020 to 322 million in 2050 (milled rice yield data are from the Central Bureau of Statistics, https://bps.go.id, accessed on 10 January 2023). Under the three paddy field conversion scenarios, if the conversion rate is 30,000 ha year−1, 60,000 ha year−1, or 96,500 ha year−1, paddy field area in 2050 will be 6.62, 5.78 or 4.76 Mha, respectively. A summary of the scenarios is presented in Figure 2.
Figure 3 shows the results of the scenario analysis on national rice production and consumption. If the yield increase follows the BAU trend, Indonesia will face a rice deficit in 2041, even if the conversion rate can be kept at no more than 30,000 ha year−1. If the conversion rate is 96,500 or 60,000 ha year−1, a rice deficit will occur in 2026 or 2028, respectively. Rice self-sufficiency is assured if the annual yield increase is 74 kg ha−1 year−1 while paddy field conversion is controlled at a maximum of 30,000 ha year−1. However, if the paddy field conversion remains at 96,500 or 60,000 ha year−1, rice self-sufficiency can only be maintained until 2030 or 2046, respectively.
This analysis clearly shows that it is crucial to accelerate the yield increase and substantially decrease paddy field conversion to maintain rice self-sufficiency. Controlling paddy field conversion is one of the most difficult challenges to address. It requires inter-ministerial and private sector coordination. The current trend of rapid infrastructural development—which often comes at the expense of highly productive agricultural areas—may be profitable in the short run, but it puts food self-sufficiency, which is the inter-regime’s main objective of agricultural development, at high risk.

6. Challenges in Implementing Agroecological Management

The implementation of improved management systems that adhere to agroecological principles is challenged by the economic, social, institutional, and technical problems faced by farmers. Table 5 lists examples of agroecological indicators, improved management systems required to address these indicators, implementation challenges, and strategies to overcome these challenges.
Apart from the strategies explained in Table 5, the reality is that high-yielding rice varieties dominate Indonesia’s paddy farming. These varieties exhibit high responsiveness to synthetic fertilizer applications, leading farmers to prioritize their use. Consequently, the effects of organic and biofertilizers might be masked by the extensive application of synthetic fertilizers.
However, after acknowledging the beneficial effects of organic fertilizers on soil health, emission reduction, and adaptation to climate change (as discussed in Section 4), it becomes necessary for the government to promote their use. This necessitates the implementation of policies aimed at such promotion, including the following [186,187,188,189]:
  • Financial incentives in the form of subsidies and/or financial support for farmers transitioning to organic fertilizers.
  • Training and extension services to inform farmers about the benefits of organic fertilizers, proper application methods, and their impact on soil health and crop yield.
  • Training on techniques to make compost and the use of local nutrient sources.
  • Research and development funding aimed at improving the effectiveness and efficient production of organic fertilizers, including on the simpler storage and longer viability of biofertilizers.
  • Regulatory support that favors the use of organic fertilizers. This includes setting the standards for organic fertilizers and certification programs to ensure quality.
  • Investing in infrastructure such as composting and biochar facilities and organic waste management systems to facilitate the production and distribution of organic fertilizers.
  • The establishment of pilot programs at selected farmers’ fields to demonstrate the effectiveness of organic fertilizers is essential. These pilots should aim to demonstrate the beneficial effects of organic fertilizers, in addition to showing the ideal combination of synthetic and organic fertilizers.
Implementing a combination of these policies could encourage the adoption and usage of organic fertilizers while reducing dependency on synthetic ones, promoting sustainable agricultural practices in the long run.
Finally, with the increasing price of chemical fertilizers, there should be an increased emphasis on the use of organic, bio-, and bioorganic fertilizers while reducing the reliance on inorganic fertilizers. This shift will lead to more economical and efficient fertilization practices. Furthermore, the enhanced use of organic fertilizers is more environmentally friendly. Farmers should be protected from the overpromotion of certain products lacking proven effectiveness. Finally, nutrient sufficiency should be ensured from the combined use of synthetic and organic fertilizers because yield increase is a must in attaining rice self-sufficiency (see Section 5).
Table 5. Examples of agroecological indicators, improved management systems, challenges, and suggested improvements.
Table 5. Examples of agroecological indicators, improved management systems, challenges, and suggested improvements.
Agroecological IndicatorImproved Management SystemChallenges in ImplementationStrategies to Overcome the Challenges
Lower methane (CH4) emissionsIntermittent irrigation, including implementation of the System of Rice IntensificationWater may be excessive when draining is needed or deficient when flooding is neededImproved irrigation and drainage systems
Use of low CH4 emission varietiesLow-emission varieties may not be the high-yielding or high-quality varieties; hence, they are not preferableLong-term genetic program to produce low-emission, high-yielding and high-quality rice varieties
Lower nitrous oxide (N2O) emissionsImprove efficiency of nitrogen (N) fertilizationFarmers are traditionally happy with quick response of N fertilizersImproved extension and wider use of leaf color chart for N application efficiency
Higher availability of essential nutrientsUse inorganic fertilizers based on local specific or test-kit-assisted recommendations supplemented by organic and natural fertilizersUnaffordability and/or unavailability of fertilizers at the right amount and the right place
  • Regularly update soil nutrient status maps
  • Explore locally available sources of nutrients
  • Ensure the availability of chemical fertilizers at the right time, amount, and place, as well as at affordable prices
Improved nutrient balance, especially by higher potassium (K) applicationIncrease application of K from inorganic and organic fertilizers
  • High-priced K fertilizers
  • Need to regularly update nutrient status maps
  • Optimize the application of locally available organic matter, especially straw
  • Explore the use of natural fertilizer such as stonemeal
  • Shift a portion of the N fertilizer subsidy to K fertilizers
Increased soil carbon stockApplication of biochar
  • Scarcity of feedstock because of competition with off-farm utilization
  • Extra work and costs to make biochar
  • Explore alternative feedstock
  • Provide carbon credit
Application of organic fertilizerScarcity of feedstock because of off-farm utilizationOptimize the use of other organic fertilizers, such as manure
Improved soil health and nutrient availability by microbesInoculation of microbes (N fixing, solubilizing, and antagonistic microbes)Quick expiration of biofertilizers, causing their ineffectivenessIntensive technical guidance of handling and use of inoculants
Sources: Adapted from Agus et al. (2022) [18] and Leimona et al. (2015) [189].

7. Conclusions and Recommendation

We have outlined Indonesia’s challenge in maintaining rice self-sufficiency. This goal hinges on enhancing rice yield, achievable through agroecological nutrient management. Our proposed strategy emphasizes a balanced mix of synthetic, organic, bio-, and bioorganic fertilizers. Improved water management and intercropping and crop rotation further amplify nutrient management success.
Soil tests stand as pivotal indicators for fertilization, yet nutrient dynamics are complex and are influenced by crop uptake and soil reactions. Hence, regular updates of nutrient status maps are vital, and should be complemented by plant tissue tests to fine-tune fertilizer recommendations. Real-time, site-specific advice is enhanced by using soil test kits alongside plant and soil tests. Strategizing potassium fertilizer use through straw recycling, increased subsidies, and exploring alternative sources like stonemeal addresses cost concerns.
Encouraging organic fertilizer usage demands incentives, demonstrations, and stakeholder collaboration to underline their efficacy to farmers. Biofertilizers, which are well-supported in the literature, require promotion through joint efforts among policymakers, researchers, and extension services.
We have also detailed the enhancement of agroecological functions resulting from agroecological nutrient management in paddy farming. These improvements encompass climate change adaptation and mitigation, nutrient cycling, water conservation, and biodiversity preservation. These aspects might be intangible for farmers, thus requiring government policy interventions to bolster the implementation.
Ultimately, agroecological approaches aimed at increasing rice yield must be accompanied by a stringent control of paddy field conversion. Implementing consistent and coordinated measures is imperative to limit the conversion to less than 30,000 hectares per year immediately, while gradually reaching 80% of the yield potential by 2050. Failing to do so will render the rice self-sufficiency objective merely rhetorical.

Author Contributions

F.A. lead the conceptualization of the article with comments provided by S.N.C. and W.I.S.; W.I.S. and F.A. wrote the draft, and all authors reviewed and commented on the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The work was undertaken within the context of the Food and Land Use Coalition Indonesia platform with support from Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative (NICFI), grant 20/3447.

Data Availability Statement

All data mentioned on the paper are available through the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We thank Aldi Airori for assisting with literature collection at the beginning of this review. The contents and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the associated and/or supporting institutions. The usual disclaimer applies.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization); International Fund for Agricultural Development; United Nations Children’s Fund; World Food Programme; World Health Organization. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2019: Safeguarding Against Economic Slowdowns and Downturns; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2019; Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/ca5162en/ca5162en.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2023).
  2. Lestari, P.; Mulya, K.; Utami, D.W.; Satyawan, D.; Supriadi, M. Strategies and Technologies for the Utilization and Improvement of Rice; Indonesian Agency for Agricultural Research and Development: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  3. BPS (Badan Pusat Statistik). Statistical Yearbook of Indonesia 2023; BPS: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  4. Grassini, P.; van Bussel, L.G.J.; Van Wart, J.; Wolf, J.; Claessens, L.; Yang, H.; Boogaard, H.; de Groot, H.; van Ittersum, M.K.; Cassman, K.G. How good is good enough? Data requirements for reliable crop yield simulations and yield-gap analysis. Field Crops Res. 2015, 177, 49–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Wezel, A.; Casagrande, M.; Celette, F.; Vian, J.F.; Ferrer, A.; Peigne, J. Agroecological practices for sustainable agriculture. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 34, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. de Molina, M.G.; Casado, G.I.G. Agroecology and ecological intensification. A discussion from a metabolic point of view. Sustainability 2017, 9, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Garcia-Oliveira, P.; Fraga-Corral, M.; Carpena, M.; Prieto, M.A.; Simal-Gandara, J. Chapter 2—Approaches for sustainable food production and consumption systems. In Future Foods; Rajeev Bhat, R., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022; pp. 23–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Martínez-Camacho, Y.D.; Negrete-Yankelevich, S.; Maldonado-Mendoza, I.E.; Núñez-de la Mora, A.; Amescua-Villela, G. Agroecological management with intra-and interspecific diversification as an alternative to conventional soil nutrient management in family maize farming. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2022, 46, 364–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Drinkwater, L.E.; Snapp, S.S. Advancing the science and practice of ecological nutrient management for smallholder farmers. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2022, 6, 921216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Soane, B.D.; Ball, B.C.; Arvidsson, J.; Basch, G.; Moreno, F.; Roger-Estrade, J. No-till in northern, western and south-western Europe: A review of problems and opportunities for crop production and the environment. Soil Till. Res. 2012, 118, 66–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Pretty, J. Agricultural sustainability: Concepts, principles and evidence. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 2008, 363, 447–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Balmford, A.; Amano, T.; Bartlett, H. The environmental costs and benefits of high-yield farming. Nat. Sustain. 2018, 1, 477–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Dawe, D. Can Indonesia trust the world rice market? Bull. Indones. Econ. Stud. 2008, 44, 115–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Yuan, S.; Stuart, A.M.; Laborte, A.G.; Rattalino Edreira, J.I.; Dobermann, A.; Kien, L.V.N.; Thúy, L.T.; Paothong, K.; Traesang, P.; Tint, K.M.; et al. Southeast Asia must narrow down the yield gap to continue to be a major rice bowl. Nat. Food 2022, 3, 217–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Liu, Y.; Yamauchi, F. Population density, migration, and the returns to human capital and land: Insights from Indonesia. Food Policy 2014, 48, 182–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Mulyani, A.; Kuncoro, D.; Nursyamsi, D.; Agus, F. Analisis konversi lahan sawah: Penggunaan data spasial resolusi tinggi memperlihatkan laju konversi yang mengkhawatirkan. J. Tan. Iklim. 2016, 40, 121–133. [Google Scholar]
  17. Andrade, J.F.; Cassman, K.G.; Rattalino Edreira, J.I.; Agus, F.; Bala, A.; Deng, N.; Grassini, P. Impact of urbanization trends on production of key staple crops. Ambio 2022, 51, 1158–1167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Agus, F.; Susilawati, H.L.; Surmaini, E. Strategies for Indonesia’s agricultural climate change adaptation and mitigation. J. Sumb. Daya. Lahan. Indo. 2022, 16, 67–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Mulyani, A.; Agus, F. Kebutuhan dan ketersediaan lahan cadangan untuk mewujudkan cita-cita Indonesia sebagai lumbung pangan dunia tahun 2045. Anal. Keb. Pert. 2018, 15, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Mulyani, A. Analisis kapasitas produksi lahan sawah untuk ketahanan pangan nasional menjelang tahun 2045. J. Sumb. Lah. 2022, 16, 33–50. Available online: https://garuda.kemdikbud.go.id/documents/detail/2690966 (accessed on 6 July 2023).
  21. Agus, F.; Andrade, J.F.; Edreira, J.I.R.; Deng, N.; Purwantomo, D.; Agustiani, N.; Aristya, V.E.; Batubara, S.F.; Herniwati; Hosang, E.Y.; et al. Yield gaps in intensive rice-maize cropping sequences in the humid tropics of Indonesia. Field Crops Res. 2019, 237, 12–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Setyorini, D.; Widowati, L.R.; Rochayati, S. Teknologi Pengelolaan Hara Lahan Sawah Intensifikasi. In Lahan Sawah dan Teknologi Pengelolaannya; Pusat Penelitian Tanah dan Agroklimat: Bogor, Indonesia, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  23. Husnain, H.; Masunaga, T.; Wakatsuki, T. Field assessment of nutrient balance under intensive rice-farming systems, and its effects on the sustainability of rice production in Java Island, Indonesia. J. Agric. Food Environ. Sci. 2010, 4, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  24. Hardjowigeno, S.; Subagyo, H.; Rayes, M. Morfologi dan Klasifikasi Tanah Sawah. In Tanah Sawah dan Teknologi Pengelolaannya; Pusat Penelitian Tanah dan Agroklimat Departemen Pertanian: Bogor, Indonesia, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  25. Soil Survey Staff. Keys to Soil Taxonomy, 11th ed.; Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2010. Available online: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/resources/guides-and-instructions/keys-to-soil-taxonomy (accessed on 9 November 2022).
  26. Widowati, L.R.; Husnain; Kasno, A.L.; Las, I.; Sarwani, M.; Rochayati, S.; Suryani, E.; Setyorini, D.; Hartatik, W.; Subiksa, M.; et al. Dosis Pupuk N, P, K Untuk Tanaman Padi Pada Lahan Sawah (per Kecamatan); Indonesian Agency for Agricultural Research and Development, Ministry of Agriculture, Republic of Indonesia: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2021; Available online: http://repository.pertanian.go.id/bitstreams/7cf03ed5-9ed4-400d-95c3-37d3d252b8b9/download (accessed on 9 November 2022).
  27. Prasetyo, B.H. Genesis Tanah Sawah Bukaan Baru. In Tanah Sawah Bukaan Baru; Balai Besar Penelitian dan Pengembangan Sumberdaya Lahan Pertanian: Bogor, Indonesia, 2007; pp. 25–52. [Google Scholar]
  28. Calvo, B.E.; Guendehou, S.; Limmeechokchai, B. Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Geneva, Swiss, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  29. Kyuma, K. Paddy Soil Science; Kyoto University Press: Kyoto, Japan, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  30. Kagawa, A. Foliar water uptake as a source of hydrogen and oxygen in plant biomass. Tree. Physiol. 2022, 42, 2153–2173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Somani, L. Micronutrient for Soil and Plant Health; Agrotech Publishing Academy: Udaipur, India, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kumar, T.; Jashimuddin, N.M.; Shahjahan, K.H. The sustainable intensification of agroforestry in shifting cultivation areas of Bangladesh. Agrofor. Syst. 2016, 90, 405–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Brady, N.; Weil, R.R. The Nature and Properties of Soil; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  34. Deb, D.L.; Sakal, R.; Datta, S. Fundamentals of Soil Science; Indian Society of Soil Science, Cambridge Printing Works: New Delhi, India, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  35. Janmohammadi, M.; Abdoli, H.; Sabaghnia, N. The effect of iron, zinc and organic fertilizer on yield of chickpea (Cicerartietinum L.) in mediterranean climate. Acta. Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendelianae. Brun. 2018, 66, 49–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zhang, S.; Li, Z.; Yang, X. Effects of long-term inorganic and organic fertilization on soil micronutrient status. Comm. Soil. Sci. Plant. Anal. 2015, 46, 1778–1790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Central Bureau of Statistics. Agricultural Statistics; Central Bureau of Statistics: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  38. Kasno, A.; Setyorini, D.; Widowati, L.R.; Rostaman, T. Evaluasi karakteristik, sumbangan hara K air irigasi dan jerami serta respon pemupukan hara kalium pada lahan sawah. J. Agric. 2021, 33, 189–198. Available online: https://ejournal.uksw.edu/agric/article/download/5180/1968/ (accessed on 10 January 2023).
  39. Sparks, D.L.; Huang, P.M. Physical Chemistry of Soil Potassium. In Potassium in Agriculture; Munson, R.D., Ed.; Soil Science Society of America: Madison, WI, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  40. Kasno, A.; Setyorini, D.; Suastika, I.W. Pengelolaan hara terpadu pada lahan sawah tadah hujan sebagai upaya peningkatan produksi beras nasional. J. Sumb. Lah. 2020, 14, 15–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Rizzo, G.; Agus, F.; Batubara, S.F.; Andrade, J.F.; Edreira, J.I.R.; Purwantomo, D.K.G.; Anasiru, R.H.; Maintang; Marbun, O.; Ningsih, R.D.; et al. A farmer data-driven approach for prioritization of agricultural research and development: A case study for intensive crop systems in the humid tropics. Field Crop. Res. 2023, 297, 108942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Setyorini, D. Uji Tanah Sebagai Dasar Penyusunan Rekomenasi Pemupukan; Balai Penelitian Tanah: Bogor, Indonesia, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  43. Irawan; Kasno, A.; Nurjaya. Financial benefits of using soil test kit of PUTS for determining dosage of lowland rice fertilizer. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 648, 012039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Setyorini, D.; Adiningsih, J.S.; Rochayati, S. Uji Tanah Sebagai Dasar Rekomendasi Pemupukan. Seri Monograf Sumber Daya Tanah Indonesia; Balai Penelitian Tanah, Badan Litbang Pertanian: Bogor, Indonesia, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  45. Sukarman; Setyorini, D.; Ritung, S. Metode Percepatan Pemetaan Status Hara Lahan Sawah. In Prosiding Seminar Nasional Teknologi Pemupukan dan Pemulihan Lahan Terdegradasi; Indonesian Agency for Agricultural Research and Development, Ministry of Agriculture: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2012; pp. 141–150. [Google Scholar]
  46. Pangaribuan, S.M.; Supriadi, S.; Sarifuddi, S. Pemetaan status hara K, Ca, Mg tanah pada kebun kelapa sawit (Elaeis guineensis Jacq) di perkebunan rakyat Kecamatan Hutabayu Raja Kabupaten Simalungun. J. Agroekoteknologi Univ. Sumat. Utara 2013, 1, 987–995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Virgawati, S.; Padmini, O.S.; Eko, P.M. Pemetaan NPK Tanah untuk Prediksi Rekomendasi Pemupukan Presisi Pada Tanaman Padi. In Prosiding Seminar Nasional Perhimpunan Teknik Pertanian Indonesia; International Workshop on Biomass Energy: Bogor, Indonesia, 2014; pp. 161–164. [Google Scholar]
  48. Reuter, D.J.; Robinson, J.B. Plant Analysis: An Interpretation Manual, 2nd ed.; CSIRO Publishing: Victoria, Australia, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  49. Dobermann, A.; Fairhurst, T.H. Nutrient Disorders and Nutrient Management; Potash and Phosphate Institute of Canada and International Rice Research Institute: Singapore, 2000; Available online: http://books.irri.org/9810427425_content.pdf (accessed on 11 May 2023).
  50. Grassini, P.; University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA. Personal communication, 2023.
  51. Bennet, W.F. Plant Nutrient Utilization And Diagnostic Plant Symptoms. In Nutrient Deficiencies And Toxicities in Crop Plant; Bennett, W.F., Ed.; American Phytopathological Society: St. Paul, MN, USA, 1993; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  52. Liew, Y.A.; Omar, S.S.; Husni, M.H.A. Effects of micronutrient fertilizers on the production of MR 219 rice (Oryza sativa L.). Malay. J. Soil. Sci. 2010, 14, 71–82. [Google Scholar]
  53. Al-Jabri, M.; Soepartini, D.; Ardi, S. Status hara Zn dan pemupukannya di lahan sawah. In Prosiding Lokakarya Nasional Efisiensi Penggunaan Pupuk; Pusat Penelitian Tanah dan Agroklimat: Bogor, Indonesia, 1990; pp. 427–464. [Google Scholar]
  54. Shukla, R.; Sharma, Y.K.; Shukla, A.K. Molecular mechanism of nutrient uptake in plants. Inter. J. Curr. Res. Aca. Rev. 2014, 2, 142–145. Available online: http://www.ijcrar.com/vol-2-12/Rajni%20Shukla,%20et%20al.pdf (accessed on 11 May 2023).
  55. Richmond, K.E.; Sussman, M. Got silicon? The non-essential beneficial plant nutrient. Curr. Plant. Biol. 2003, 6, 268–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ma, J.F. Role of silicon in enhancing the resistance of plants to biotic and abiotic stresses. Soil. Sci. Plant. Nutr. 2004, 50, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Dhaliwal, S.S.; Naresh, R.K.; Mandal, A.; Singh, R.; Dhaliwal, M.K. Dynamics and transformations of micronutrients in agricultural soils as influenced by organic matter build-up: A review. Environ. Sustain. Indic. 2019, 1–2, 100007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Khan, Z.I.; Hussain, M.I.; Zafar, A. Ecological risk assessment and bioaccumulation of trace element, copper, in wheat varieties irrigated with non-conventional water resources in a semi-arid tropics. Agric. Water Manag. 2022, 269, 107711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Mäder, P.; Fliessbach, A.; Dubois, D.; Gunst, L.; Fried, P.; Niggli, U. Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science 2002, 296, 1694–1697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Saha, S.; Saha, B.; Ray, M.; Mukhopadhyay, S.K.; Halder, P.; Das, A. Integrated nutrient management (INM) on yield trends and sustainability, nutrient balance and soil fertility in a long-term (30 years) rice-wheat system in the Indo-Gangetic plains of India. J. Plant Nut. 2018, 41, 2365–2375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Agus, F.; Setyorini, D.; Hartatik, W.; Lee, S.M.; Sung, J.K.; Shin, J.H. Nutrient balance and vegetable crop production as affected by different sources of organic fertilizers. Korean J. Soil Sci. Fertil. 2009, 42, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  62. Hartatik, W.; Setyorini, D. Validasi rekomendasi pemupukan NPK dan pupuk organik pada padi sawah. In Prosiding seminar Sumberdaya Lahan Pertanian; Balai Besar Sumberdaya Lahan Pertanian: Bogor, Indonesia, 2008; pp. 275–283. [Google Scholar]
  63. Doberman, A.; Fairhurst, T.H. Rice straw management. Better Crops Int. 2002, 16, 7–11. [Google Scholar]
  64. Cao, Y.; He, Z.; Zhu, T. Organic-C quality as a key driver of microbial nitrogen immobilization in soil: A meta-analysis. Geoderma 2021, 383, 114784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Tadesse, T.; Dechassa, N.; Bayu, W.; Gebeyehu, S. Effects of farmyard manure and inorganic fertilizer application on soil physico-chemical properties and nutrient balance in rain-fed lowland rice ecosystem. Sci. Res. 2013, 4, 309–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ando, K.; Yamaguchi, N.; Kasuya, M.; Oga, T.; Ohashi, Y.; Taki, K. Long-term (nearly a century) effects of fertilizer, lime and rice straw compost application on active aluminum and iron and available phosphorus in paddy fields. Geoderma 2022, 424, 115992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Liao, P.; Huang, S.; Van Gestel, N.C.; Zeng, Y.; Wu, Z.; van Groenigen, K.J. Liming and straw retention interact to increase nitrogen uptake and grain yield in a double rice-cropping system. Field Crops Res. 2018, 216, 217–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Nannipieri, P.; Ascher, J.; Ceccherini, M.T.; Landi, L.; Pietramellara, G.; Renella, G.; Valori, F. Microbial diversity and microbial activity in the rhizosphere. Cienc. Suelo 2007, 25, 89–97. Available online: http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?pid=S1850-20672007000100011&script=sci_arttext (accessed on 11 May 2023).
  69. Sarkar, D.; Sankar, A.; Devika, O.S. Optimizing nutrient use efficiency, productivity, energetics, and economics of red cabbage following mineral fertilization and biopriming with compatible rhizosphere microbes. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 15680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Burris, R.H.; Roberts, G.P. Biological nitrogen fixation. Annu. Rev. Nutr. 1993, 13, 317–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Kumar, S.; Sindhu, S.S.; Kumar, R. Biofertilizers: An ecofriendly technology for nutrient recycling and environmental sustainability. Curr. Res. Microb. Sci. 2022, 3, 100094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Watanabe, I.; Roger, P.A. Nitrogen Fixation in Wetland Rice Field. In Current Developments in Biological Nitrogen Fixation; Subba-Rao, N.S., Ed.; Oxford and IBH: New Delhi, India, 1984; pp. 237–276. [Google Scholar]
  73. Leakey, R.R.B. The role of trees in agroecology and sustainable agriculture in the tropics. Ann. Rev. Phyto 2014, 52, 113–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Razie, F.; Anas, I. Effect of Azotobacter and Azospirillum on growth and yield of rice grown on tidal swamp rice field in South Kalimantan. J. Ilmu Tanah Lingkung. 2008, 10, 41–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Iswandi, A.; Hazra, F.; Rakhmadina, V.D. Potensi oligochitosan, vitazyme dan biofertilizer dalam meningkatkan pertumbuhan dan produksi padi (Oryza sativa L.). J. Ilmu Tanah Lingkung. 2013, 15, 5–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Chatterjee, A.; Singh, S.; Agrawal, C. Role of algae as a biofertilizer. In Algal Green Chemistry Recent Progress in Biotechnology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 189–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Pimratch, S.; Butsat, S.; Kesmala, T. Application of blue-green algae and mineral fertilizers to direct seeding lowland rice. Sci. Asia. 2015, 41, 305–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Roger, P.A.; Kulasooriya, S. Blue Green Algae and Rice; International Rice Research Institute: Los Banos, Philippines, 1980; Available online: http://books.irri.org/971104028X_content.pdf (accessed on 11 May 2023).
  79. Setiawati, M.R.; Prayoga, M.K.; Stöber, S.; Adinata, K.; Simarmata, T. Performance of rice paddy varieties under various organic soil fertility strategies. Open Agric. 2020, 5, 509–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Setiawati, M.R.; Fitriatin, B.N.; Suryatmana, P.; Simarmata, T. Aplikasi pupuk hayati dan azolla untuk mengurangi dosis pupuk anorganik dan meningkatkan N, P, C organik tanah, dan N, P tanaman, serta hasil padi sawah. J. Agroekotek 2020, 12, 63–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Setiawati, M.R.; Damayani, M.; Herdiyantoro, D.; Suryatmana, P.; Anggraini, D.; Khumairah, F.H. The application dosage of Azolla pinnata in fresh and powder form as organic fertilizer on soil chemical properties, growth and yield of rice plant. AIP Conf. Proc. 2018, 1927, 030017. [Google Scholar]
  82. Bello, S.K.; Shobayo, A.B.; Ibrahim, M.M.; Alasinrin, S.Y.; Aliyu, I.A.; Yusuf, A.A. Biological nitrogen fixation contributes to soil productivity in tropical agroecologies. Niger. J. Soil Science 2021, 31, 1. [Google Scholar]
  83. Prasad, R.C.; Prasad, B. Blue green algal inoculation for rice productivity and soil fertility in Nepal. J. Nep. Biotech. Assoc. 2003, 1, 17–20. [Google Scholar]
  84. Mishra, U.; Pabbi, S. Cyanobacteria: A potential biofertilizer for rice. Resonance 2004, 9, 6–10. Available online: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02839213 (accessed on 10 January 2023). [CrossRef]
  85. Prasad, R.C. Studies on Screening and Biology of Some of the Potential Blue Green Algae (Cyanobacteria) as a Source of Biofertilizers from the Rice Fields of Bagmati and Narayani Zones of Nepal. Ph.D. Thesis, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  86. Tian, J.; Ge, F.; Zhang, D.; Deng, S.; Liu, X. Roles of Phosphate Solubilizing Microorganisms from managing soil phosphorus deficiency to mediating biogeochemical P cycle. Biology 2021, 10, 158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Rodríguez, H.; Fraga, R. Phosphate solubilizing bacteria and their role in plant growth promotion. Biotechnol. Adv. 1999, 17, 319–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Zaidi, A.; Khan, M.S.; Ahemad, M.; Oves, M. Plant growth promotion by phosphate solubilizing bacteria. Acta. Immune. Hung 2009, 56, 263–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Puspitawati, M.D.; Anas, I. Pemanfaatan mikrob pelarut fosfat untuk mengurangi dosis pupuk P anorganik pada padi sawah. J. Agron. Indo. 2013, 41, 188–195. Available online: https://journal.ipb.ac.id/index.php/jurnalagronomi/article/view/8095 (accessed on 3 January 2023).
  90. Sindhu, S.S.; Parmar, P.; Phour, M.; Sehrawat, A. Potassium Solubilizing Microorganisms (KSMs) and its Effect on Plant Growth Improvement. In Potassium Solubilizing Microorganisms for Sustainable Agriculture; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 171–185. [Google Scholar]
  91. Prajapati, K.B.; Modi, H.A. Isolation and characterization of potassium solubilizing bacteria from ceramic industry soil. CIBTech. J. Microbiol. 2012, 1, 8–14. [Google Scholar]
  92. Megarani, M.M. Subtitusi Sebagian Pupuk Kimia Dengan Pupuk Organik Hayati Pada Budidaya Padi SRI (System of Rice Intensification); Dissertation, Institut Pertanian Bogor: Bogor, Indonesia, 2016; Available online: https://repository.ipb.ac.id/handle/123456789/85147 (accessed on 10 January 2023).
  93. Shaaban, M.; Wu, L.; Peng, Q.A.; van Zwieten, L.; Chhajro, M.A.; Wu, Y.; Lin, S.; Ahmed, M.M.; Khalid, M.S.; Abid, M.; et al. Influence of ameliorating soil acidity with dolomite on the priming of soil C content and CO2 emission. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 9241–9250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Zhou, Z.-M. Rice yields and soil nutrients response to liming method and dosages in field cultivation. Sains Malays. 2022, 51, 83–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Azman, E.A.; Jusop, S.; Ishak, C.F. Increasing rice production using different lime sources on an acid sulphate soil in Merbok, Malaysia. J. Trop. Agri. Sci. 2014, 37, 223–247. [Google Scholar]
  96. Duart, V.M.; Garbuio, F.J.; Caires, E.F. Does direct-seeded rice performance improve upon lime and phosphogypsum use? Soil Tillage Res. 2021, 212, 105055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Soratto, R.P.; Crusciol, C.A. Dolomite and phosphogypsum surface application effects on annual crops nutrition and yield. J. Agro. 2008, 100, 261–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. He, Y.-B.; Huang, D.-Y.; Zhu, Q.-H.; Wang, S.; Liu, S.-L.; He, H.-B.; Zhu, H.-H.; Xu, C. A three-season field study on the in-situ remediation of Cd-contaminated paddy soil using lime, two industrial by-products, and a low-Cd-accumulation rice cultivar. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2017, 136, 135–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Duan, M.M.; Wang, S.; Huang, D.Y. Effectiveness of simultaneous applications of lime and zinc/iron foliar sprays to minimize cadmium accumulation in rice. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 165, 510–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Xie, T.; Li, Y.; Dong, H.; Liu, W.; Wang, M.; Wang, G. Effects and mechanisms on the reduction of lead accumulation in rice grains through lime amendment. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2019, 173, 266–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Kong, L.; Guo, Z.; Peng, C.; Xiao, X.; He, Y. Factors influencing the effectiveness of liming on cadmium reduction in rice: A meta-analysis and decision tree analysis. Sci. Total. Environ. 2021, 779, 146477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Wang, Y.; Liang, H.; Li, S.; Zhang, Z.; Liao, Y.; Lu, Y.; Zhou, G.; Gao, S.; Nie, J.; Cao, W. Co-utilizing milk vetch, rice straw, and lime reduces the Cd accumulation of rice grain in two paddy soils in South China. Sci. Total. Environ. 2022, 806, 150622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Murtaza, G.; Ditta, A.; Ullah, N.; Usman, M.; Amer, Z. Biochar for the management of nutrient impoverished and metal contaminated soils: Preparation, applications, and prospects. J. Soil. Sci. Plant. Nutr. 2021, 21, 2191–2213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Sukartono; Utomo, W.H.; Kusuma, Z.; Nugroho, W.H. Soil fertility status, nutrient uptake, and maize (Zea mays L.) yield following biochar and cattle manure application on sandy soils of Lombok, Indonesia. J. Trop. Agric. 2011, 49, 47–52. Available online: https://jtropag.kau.in/index.php/ojs2/article/view/236/236 (accessed on 8 March 2023).
  105. Masulili, A.; Utomo, W.H.; Syechfani, M.S. Rice husk biochar for rice based cropping system in acid soil 1: The characteristics of rice husk biochar and sulfate soils and rice growth in West Kalimantan, Indonesia. J. Agric. Sci. 2010, 2, 39. Available online: https://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jas/article/view/4369 (accessed on 8 March 2023). [CrossRef]
  106. Lakitan, B.; Alberto, A.; Lindiana, L.; Kartika, K.; Herlinda, S.; Kurnianingsih, A. The benefits of biochar on rice growth and yield in tropical riparian wetland, South Sumatra, Indonesia. Chiang Mai Univ. J. Nat. Sci. 2018, 17, 111–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Fontaine, S.; Barot, S. Size and functional diversity of microbe populations control plant persistence and long-term soil carbon accumulation. Eco. Letter. 2005, 8, 1075–1087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Sarfraz, R.; Hussain, A.; Sabir, A.; Ben Fekih, I.; Ditta, A.; Xing, S. Role of biochar and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria to enhance soil carbon sequestration: A review. Environ. Mon. Assess. 2019, 191, 251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Leonardos, O.H.; Theodoro, S.H.; Assad, M.L. Remineralization for sustainable agriculture: A tropical perspective from a Brazilian viewpoint. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2000, 56, 3–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Singh, C.; Tiwari, S.; Gupta, V.K.; Singh, J.S. The effect of rice husk biochar on soil nutrient status, microbial biomass and paddy productivity of nutrient poor agriculture soils. Catena 2018, 171, 485–493. [Google Scholar]
  111. Dong, D.; Feng, Q.; Mcgrouther, K.; Yang, M.; Wang, H.; Wu, W. Effects of biochar amendment on rice growth and nitrogen retention in a waterlogged paddy field. J. Soils Sediments 2015, 15, 153–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Theodoro, S.H.; Leonardos, O.H. The use of rocks to improve family agriculture in Brazil. Acad. Bras. Ciências 2006, 78, 721–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Samobor, V.; Horvat, D.; Kesteli, B.; Jost, M. Effect of stone meal on control of seed-borne diseases in wheat. Agron. Glas. Glas. Hrvat. Agron. Društva 2008, 70, 563–572. Available online: https://hrcak.srce.hr/33136 (accessed on 10 January 2023).
  114. Wahyudi, A.; Wahyudi, T. A literature study of benefiting K-bearing silicate rocks. Indo. Min. J. 2013, 6, 101–110. Available online: https://jurnal.tekmira.esdm.go.id/index.php/imj/article/download/428/293 (accessed on 10 January 2023).
  115. Eddy, H.R.; Muksin, I. Karakteristik batuan pembawa kalium di Kecamatan Cluwak, Kabupaten Pati, Provinsi Jawa Tengah. Bul. Sumb. Geol. 2019, 14, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Muksin, I.; Karangan, C. Prospeksi batuan pembawa kalium Kabupaten Pati, Provinsi Jawa Tengah. In Prosiding No. 11 Hasil Kerja Lapangan Tahun 2016, Buku 2. Bidang Mineral; Pusat Sumber Daya Mineral Batubara dan Panas Bumi: Bandung, Indonesia, 2017; pp. 245–252. [Google Scholar]
  117. Valentin, C.; Agus, F.; Alamban, R. Runoff and sediment losses from 27 upland catchments in Southeast Asia: Impact of rapid land use changes and conservation practices. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2008, 128, 225–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Tran, D.N.L.; Nguyen, T.D.; Pham, T.; Ranula, J.R.F.; Nguyen, T.A. Improving irrigation water use efficiency of robusta coffee (Coffea canephora) production in Lam Dong Province, Vietnam. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Fuglie, K.O. Sources of growth in Indonesian agriculture. J. Prod. Anal. 2010, 33, 225–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Devkota, K.P.; Pasuquin, E.; Elmido-Mabilangan, A. Economic and environmental indicators of sustainable rice cultivation: A comparison across intensive irrigated rice cropping systems in six Asian countries. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 105, 199–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Yustika, D.R.; Somura, H.; Budi, Y. Impact of human activities and natural processes on the seasonal variability of river water quality in two watersheds in Lampung, Indonesia. Water 2019, 11, 2363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Prastica, R.M.S.; Soeryantono, H.; Marthanty, D.R. Mathematical modelling of hydraulics and water quality characteristics for small dam maintenance. Mag. Civ. Eng. 2022, 109, 10903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Tyagi, S.K.; Singh, P.S.D. Need for proper water management for security. Curr. Sci. 2012, 102, 690–695. Available online: https://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/102/05/0690.pdf (accessed on 7 May 2023).
  124. Setiawan, Y.; Rustiadi, E.; Yoshino, K.; Effendi, H. Assessing the seasonal dynamics of the Java’s paddy field using MODIS satellite images. ISPRS Inter. J. Geo-Info. 2014, 3, 110–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Doni, F.; Zain, C.R.C.M.; Isahak, A. Relationships observed between Trichoderma inoculation and characteristics of rice grown under System of Rice Intensification (SRI) vs. conventional methods of cultivation. Symbiosis 2017, 72, 45–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Siahaan, Y.; Rohmat, D. The implementation of modern irrigation to improve the farmer welfare. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 286, 012018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Anas, I.; Rupela, O.P.; Thiyagarajan, T.M.; Uphoff, N. A review of studies on SRI effects on beneficial organisms in rice soil rhizospheres. Paddy Water Environ. 2011, 9, 53–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Lakitan, B. Research and technology development in Southeast Asian economies are drifting away from agriculture and farmers’ needs. J. Sci. Tech. Pol. Manag. 2019, 10, 251–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Hidayati, N.; Triadiati, T.; Anas, I. Rooting system of rice cultivated under System of Rice Intensification (SRI) method which improving rice yield. HAYATI J. Biosci. 2018, 25, 63–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Bakrie, M.M.; Anas, I.; Idris, K. Application of inorganic and bio-organic fertilizer on System of Rice Intensification. J. Tan. Lingk. 2010, 12, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Razie, F.; Anas, I.; Sutandi, A.; Gunarto, L. Efisiensi serapan hara dan hasil padi pada budidaya SRI di persawahan pasang surut dengan menggunakan kompos diperkaya. J. Agron. Indones. 2013, 41, 89–97. Available online: https://journal.ipb.ac.id/index.php/jurnalagronomi/article/download/7509/5840 (accessed on 7 May 2023).
  132. Hidayati, N.; Anas, I. Photosynthesis and transpiration rates of rice cultivated under the system of rice intensification and the effects on growth and yield. HAYATI J. Biosci. 2016, 23, 67–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Subardja, V.O.; Anas, I.; Widyastuti, R. Utilization of organic fertilizer to increase paddy growth and productivity using System of Rice Intensification (SRI) method in saline soil. J. Degr. Min. Land. Manag. 2016, 3, 543–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Moser, C.M.; Barrett, C.B. The disappointing adoption dynamics of a yield-increasing, low external-input technology: The case of SRI in Madagascar. Agric. Syst. 2003, 76, 1085–1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Tsujimoto, Y.; Horie, T.; Randriamihary, H. The key factors for higher productivity in the fields utilizing the system of rice intensification (SRI) in the central highland of Madagascar. Agric. Syst. 2009, 100, 61–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Styger, E.; Aboubacrine, G.; Attaher, M.A.; Uphoff, N. The system of rice intensification as a sustainable agricultural innovation: Introducing, adapting and scaling up a system of rice intensification practices in the Timbuktu region of Mali. Inter. J. Agric. Sustain. 2011, 9, 67–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Thakur, A.K.; Uphoff, N.; Antony, E. An assessment of physiological effects of system of rice intensification (SRI) practices compared with recommended rice cultivation practices in India. Exp. Agric. 2010, 46, 77–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Palanisami, K.; Karunakaran, K.R.; Amarasinghe, U.; Ranganathan, C.R. 2013. Doing different things or doing it differently? Rice intensification practices in 13 states of India. Econ. Political Wkly. 2013, 48, 51–58. Available online: https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/40276 (accessed on 10 January 2023).
  139. Arsil, P.; Sahirman, S.; Hidayat, H.H. The reasons for farmers not to adopt System of Rice Intensification (SRI) as a sustainable agricultural practice: An explorative study. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2018, 250, 012063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Uphoff, N.; Kassam, A.; Stoop, W. A critical assessment of a desk study comparing crop production systems: The example of the “system of rice intensification” versus “best management practice”. Field Crops Res. 2008, 108, 109–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Kassam, A.; Stoop, W.; Uphoff, N. Review of SRI modifications in rice crop and water management and research issues for making further improvements in agricultural and water productivity. Paddy Water Environ. 2011, 9, 163–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Breidenbach, B.; Brenzinger, K.; Brandt, F.B.; Blaser, M.B.; Conrad, R. The effect of crop rotation between wetland rice and upland maize on the microbial communities associated with roots. Plant Soil 2017, 419, 435–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Adhikari, K.; Bhandari, S.; Acharya, S. An overview of azolla in rice production: A review. Rev. Food Agric. 2020, 2, 04–08. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Yassi, A.; Farid, M.; Anshori, M.F.; Muchtar, H.; Syamsuddin, R.; Adnan, A. The Integrated Minapadi (Rice-Fish) Farming System: Compost and Local Liquid Organic Fertilizer Based on Multiple Evaluation Criteria. Agronomy 2023, 13, 978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Gao, H.; Dai, W.; Fang, K.; Yi, X.; Chen, N.; Penttinen, P.; Sha, Z.; Cao, L. Rice-duck co-culture integrated different fertilizers reduce P losses and Pb accumulation in subtropical China. Chemosphere 2020, 245, 125571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  146. Long, P.; Huang, H.; Liao, X.; Fu, Z.; Zheng, H.; Chen, A.; Chen, C. Mechanism and capacities of reducing ecological cost through rice–duck cultivation. J. Sci. Food. Agric. 2013, 93, 2881–2891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Zhang, Y.; Guan, C.; Li, Z.; Luo, J.; Ren, B.; Chen, C.; Xu, Y.; Ding, J.; Huang, H. Review of Rice–Fish–Duck Symbiosis System in China—One of the Globally Important Ingenious Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS). Sustainability 2023, 15, 1910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Simarmata, T.; Proyoga, M.K.; Herdiyantoro, D.; Setiawati, M.R.; Adinata, K.; Stober, S. Climate resilient sustainable agriculture for restoring the soil health and increasing rice productivity as adaptation strategy to climate change in Indonesia. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 748, 012039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Yan, X.; Shi, S.; Du, L.; Xing, G. Pathways of N2O emission from rice paddy soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2000, 32, 437–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Zheng, X.; Wang, M.; Wang, Y.; Shen, R.; Gou, Z.; Li, J.; Jin, J.; Li, L. Impacts of soil moisture on nitrous oxide emission from croplands: A case study on the rice-based agro-ecosystem in Southeast China. Chem. Chang. Sci. 2000, 2, 207–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Calvo-Rodriguez, S.; Kiese, R.; Castro, S. Soil Greenhouse Gas Pulses from a Tropical Dry Forest; General Assembly Conference; European Geoscience Union: Vienna, Austria, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  152. Gathorne-Hardy, A. A life cycle assessment (LCA) of greenhouse gas emissions from SRI and flooded rice production in SE India. Taiwan Water Conser. 2013, 61, 111–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Suryavanshi, P.; Singh, Y.V.; Prasanna, R. Pattern of methane emission and water productivity under different methods of rice crop establishment. Paddy Water Environ. 2013, 11, 321–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Ferichani, M.; Prasetya, D.A. System of rice intensification increases rice productivity on saline soil. Paddy Water Environ. 2017, 15, 649–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Setyanto, P.; Pramono, A.; Adriany, T.A.; Susilawati, H.L.; Tokida, T.; Padre, A.T.; Minamikawa, K. Alternate wetting and drying reduces methane emission from a rice paddy in Central Java, Indonesia without yield loss. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2018, 64, 23–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Tirol-Padre, A.; Minamikawa, K.; Tokida, T.; Wassmann, R.; Yagi, K. Site-specific feasibility of alternate wetting and drying as a greenhouse gas mitigation option in irrigated rice fields in Southeast Asia: A synthesis. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2018, 64, 2–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Steinbeiss, S.; Gleixner, G.; Antonietti, M. Effect of biochar amendment on soil carbon balance and soil microbial activity. Soil. Biol. Biochem. 2009, 41, 1301–1310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Mekuria, W.; Noble, A. The role of biochar in ameliorating disturbed soils and sequestering soil carbon in tropical agricultural production systems. Appl. Environ. Soil. Sci. 2013, 2013, 354965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Shen, J.; Tang, H.; Liu, J.; Wang, C.; Li, Y.; Ge, T.; Jones, D.L.; Wu, J. Contrasting effects of straw and straw-derived biochar amendments on greenhouse gas emissions within double rice cropping systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2014, 188, 264–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Shaukat, M.; Samoy-Pascual, K.; Maas, E.D.V.L. Simultaneous effects of biochar and nitrogen fertilization on nitrous oxide and methane emissions from paddy rice. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 248, 109242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  161. Criscuoli, I.; Ventura, M.; Wiedner, K.; Glaser, B.; Panzacchi, P. Woodchips biochar and impact on soil carbon stocks: Results from a two-year field experiment. Forests 2021, 12, 1350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Sui, Y.; Gao, J.; Liu, C.; Zhang, W.; Lan, Y.; Li, S.; Meng, J.; Xu, Z.; Tang, L. Interactive effects of straw-derived biochar and N fertilization on soil C storage and rice productivity in rice paddies of Northeast China. Sci. Total. Environ. 2016, 544, 203–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Paudel, S.; Baral, H.; Rojario, A.; Bhatta, K.P. Agroforestry: Opportunities and challenges in Timor-Leste. Forests 2022, 13, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Arianti, M.; Setyanto, P. The effect of rice straw and manure application on N2O emission and rice yield in crop-livestock integration systems. Food Crop. Agric. Res. 2010, 29, 47–52. [Google Scholar]
  165. Win, E.P.; Win, K.K.; Bellingrath-Kimura, S.D.; Oo, A.Z. Influence of rice varieties, organic manure and water management on greenhouse gas emissions from paddy rice soils. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0253755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  166. Baruah, A.; Baruah, K.K. Organic manures and crop residues as fertilizer substitutes: Impact on nitrous oxide emission, plant growth and grain yield in pre-monsoon rice cropping system. J. Environ. Protect. 2015, 6, 755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Wang, C.; Ma, X.; Shen, J.; Chen, D.; Zheng, L.; Ge, T.; Li, Y.; Wu, J. Reduction in net greenhouse gas emissions through a combination of pig manure and reduced inorganic fertilizer application in a double-rice cropping system: Three-year results. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2022, 326, 107799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Zhang, Y.; Nie, Y.; Liu, Y.; Huang, X.; Yang, Y.; Xiong, H.; Yehua, Y.; Xiong, H.; Zhu, H.; Li, Y. Characteristics of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Yellow Paddy Soils under Long-Term Organic Fertilizer Application. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Sembiring, H.A.; Subekti, N.; Nugraha, D.; Priatmojo, B.; Stuart, A.M. Yield gap management under seawater intrusion areas of Indonesia to improve rice productivity and resilience to climate change. Agriculture 2020, 10, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Wihardjaka, A.; Harsanti, E.S. Potensi produksi gas metana dari tanah sawah tadah hujan di daerah pantai utara bagian Timur Jawa Tengah. Ecolab 2011, 5, 68–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. MoEF (Ministry of Environment and Forestry). Indonesia First Biennial Update Report (BUR); MoEF: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2015; Available online: https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/idnbur1.pdf (accessed on 7 May 2023).
  172. Gaihre, Y.K.; Wassmann, R.; Tirol-Padre, A.; Villegas-Pangga, G.; Aquino, E.; Kimball, B.A. Seasonal assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from irrigated lowland rice fields under infrared warming. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2014, 184, 88–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Locatelli, B.; Pavageau, C.; Pramova, E.; Di Gregorio, M. Integrating climate change mitigation and adaptation in agriculture and forestry: Opportunities and trade-offs. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2015, 6, 585–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Thomas, V.G.; Kevan, P.G. Basic principles of agroecology and sustainable agriculture. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 1993, 6, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Prasad, S.; Malav, L.C.; Choudhary, J. Soil microbiomes for healthy nutrient recycling. In Current Trends in Microbial Biotechnology for Sustainable Agriculture; Yadav, A.N., Singh, J., Singh, C., Yadav, N., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Tahat, M.M.; Alananbeh, K.A.; Othman, Y. Soil health and sustainable agriculture. Sustainability 2020, 1, 4859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Song, J.; Cai, D.; Deng, J.; Wang, K.; Shen, Z. Dynamics of paddy field patterns in response to urbanization: A case study of the Hang-Jia-Hu Plain. Sustainability 2015, 7, 13813–13835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Sukarjo; Zulaehah, I.; Handayani, C.O.; Zu’Amah, H. Heavy metal pollution assessment in paddy fields and dryland in Bandung District, West Java. IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 648, 012114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Tabari, H. Climate change impact on flood and extreme precipitation increases with water availability. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 13768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  180. Ishfaq, M.; Farooq, M.; Zulfiqar, U.; Hussain, S.; Akbar, N.; Nawaz, A.; Anjum, S. Alternate wetting and drying: A water-saving and ecofriendly rice production system. Agric. Water Manag. 2020, 241, 106363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Bambaradeniya, C.N.B.; Amarasinghe, F.P. Biodiversity Associated with Rice Field Agroecosystem in Asian Countries: A Brief Review; Working Paper 63; International Water Management Institute: Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  182. Pretty, J.; Bharucha, Z.P. Sustainable intensification in agricultural systems. Ann. Bot. 2014, 114, 1571–1596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  183. Ray, D.K.; Mueller, N.D.; West, P.C. Yield trends are insufficient to double global crop production by 2050. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e66428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. ATRBPN (Ministry of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning/National Land Agency). Decree No. 686-SK_PG-03_03-XII-2019; ATRBPN: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  185. Agustiani, N.; Deng, N.; Edreira, J.I.R. Simulating rice and maize yield potential in the humid tropical environment of Indonesia. Eur. J. Agron. 2019, 101, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Mohammadi, A.; Khoshnevisan, B.; Venkatesh, G.; Eskandari, S. A critical review on advancement and challenges of biochar application in paddy fields: Environmental and life cycle cost analysis. Processes 2020, 8, 1275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Mutiara, V.I.; Hariance, R.; Utami, A.S. Incentive program towards sustainability of organic rice certification in Limapuluh Kota Regency, West Sumatra, Indonesia. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 741, 012077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Sukayat, Y.; Setiawan, I.; Suharfaputra, U.; Kurnia, G. Determining factors for farmers to engage in sustainable agricultural practices: A case from Indonesia. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Leimona, B.; Amaruzaman, S.; Arifin, B.; Yasmin, F.; Hasan, F.; Agusta, H.; Frias, J. Indonesia’s ‘Green Agriculture’ Strategies and Policies: Closing the Gap between Aspirations and Application; Occasional Paper 23; World Agroforestry: Nairobi, Kenya, 2015; Available online: https://apps.worldagroforestry.org/sea/Publications/files/occasionalpaper/OP0003-15.pdf (accessed on 7 May 2023).
Figure 1. Maps showing the percentage of paddy field areas with high phosphorous (P) status (>174 mg kg−1 P) (upper) and the percentage of paddy field areas with high potassium (K) status (>166 mg kg−1 K) (lower) (adapted from Widowati et al., 2021) [26].
Figure 1. Maps showing the percentage of paddy field areas with high phosphorous (P) status (>174 mg kg−1 P) (upper) and the percentage of paddy field areas with high potassium (K) status (>166 mg kg−1 K) (lower) (adapted from Widowati et al., 2021) [26].
Sustainability 16 00845 g001
Figure 2. Scenarios of yield increase of 40 kg ha−1 year−1 (business as usual, BAU) and 74 kg ha−1 year−1 for attaining 80% of the yield potential by 2050, and paddy field conversion rates of 96,500 ha year−1 (BAU), 60,000 ha year−1 and 30,000 ha year−1.
Figure 2. Scenarios of yield increase of 40 kg ha−1 year−1 (business as usual, BAU) and 74 kg ha−1 year−1 for attaining 80% of the yield potential by 2050, and paddy field conversion rates of 96,500 ha year−1 (BAU), 60,000 ha year−1 and 30,000 ha year−1.
Sustainability 16 00845 g002
Figure 3. Milled rice production and consumption at different land conversion rates and yield increase scenarios. P_C96.5 = milled rice production at paddy field conversion rate of 96,000 ha year−1; P_C60 = milled rice production at paddy field conversion rate of 60,000 ha year−1; and P_C30 = milled rice production at paddy field conversion rate of 30,000 ha year−1. YBAU = rice grain yield increase under the business-as-usual rate of 40 kg ha−1 year−1; Y80 = rice grain yield increase of 74 kg ha−1 for attaining 80% of the yield potential by 2050. * denotes the milled rice production under the combined different conversion and yield increase scenarios. Red dash arrows indicate the year when the consumption equals the production under selected combined scenarios of conversion and yield increase.
Figure 3. Milled rice production and consumption at different land conversion rates and yield increase scenarios. P_C96.5 = milled rice production at paddy field conversion rate of 96,000 ha year−1; P_C60 = milled rice production at paddy field conversion rate of 60,000 ha year−1; and P_C30 = milled rice production at paddy field conversion rate of 30,000 ha year−1. YBAU = rice grain yield increase under the business-as-usual rate of 40 kg ha−1 year−1; Y80 = rice grain yield increase of 74 kg ha−1 for attaining 80% of the yield potential by 2050. * denotes the milled rice production under the combined different conversion and yield increase scenarios. Red dash arrows indicate the year when the consumption equals the production under selected combined scenarios of conversion and yield increase.
Sustainability 16 00845 g003
Table 1. Recommended phosphorous (P) and potassium (K) for different paddy soil (P and K soil) test status (modified from Widowati et al., 2021) [26].
Table 1. Recommended phosphorous (P) and potassium (K) for different paddy soil (P and K soil) test status (modified from Widowati et al., 2021) [26].
Soil Nutrient StatusFertilizer Recommendation
P status (mg P kg−1)Fertilizer rate (kg P ha−1)
Low (<87)17
Medium (87–174)13
High (>174)11
K status (mg K kg−1)Fertilizer rate (kg K ha−1)
Low (<83)38
Medium (83–166)30
High (>166)25
Table 2. Nitrogen (N) fertilizer rates based on yield targets (modified from Widowati et al., 2021) [26].
Table 2. Nitrogen (N) fertilizer rates based on yield targets (modified from Widowati et al., 2021) [26].
Yield Targets (t ha−1)N Rates (kg ha−1)
<6112.5
6–8135.0
>8157.5
Table 3. Comparison of rice yield in conventional cultivation and the System of Rice Intensification (SRI).
Table 3. Comparison of rice yield in conventional cultivation and the System of Rice Intensification (SRI).
MethodIncreaseReference
ConventionalSRI
t ha−1t ha−1%
6.07.932Bakrie et al., 2010 [130]
3.64.322Razie et al., 2013 [131]
7.09.029Hidayati and Anas 2016 [132]
5.47.233Subardja et al., 2016 [133]
4.56.442Moser and Barrett 2003 [134]
3.84.622Tsujimoto et al., 2009 [135]
4.87.658Styger et al., 2011 [136]
Table 4. Potential nutrient contributions from organic matter, biofertilizers, and other soil ameliorants.
Table 4. Potential nutrient contributions from organic matter, biofertilizers, and other soil ameliorants.
TreatmentsPotential Nutrient ContributionYield Increase
(t ha−1)
References
NPKMicronutrients
Manure, 2 t ha−1 (dry weight)16 kg ha−114 kg ha−131 kg ha−1NANA[61]
Rice straw (5 t ha−1)25–40 kg ha−13.5–5.9 kg ha−158–83 kg ha−1NAFrom 2.4 to 4.1 t ha−1[62,63]
Azotobacter + 50% of NPK normal dose50% †NANANANo yield decline[75]
50% NPK (69 kg N, 4 kg P, 21 kg K ha−1) + 7 t ha−1 of Azolla + 25 kg ha−1 powder of Azotobacter, Azospirillum, N2-fixing bacteria, and P-solubilizing bacteria)69 kg ha−1 Ł4 kg ha−1 Ł21 kg ha−1 ŁNANo yield decline[111]
Blue-green algae30 to 40 kg ha−1NANANAFrom 2.0 to 2.3 t ha−1[78]
Blue-green algae + 50 kg N ha−130 to 40 kg ha−1NANANAFrom 3.0 to 3.2 t ha−1[78]
Blue-green algaeNANANANA7–22%[78,82,83,84,85]
P-solubilizing microbesNA50% †NANANA[89]
K-solubilizing microbes NA NA[90,91]
Biochar
Stonemeal of K-bearing rocksNANA1.6 to 7.3% ‡NANA[115,116]
NA = Data not measured or not available. † Percent contribution relative to conventional chemical fertilizer application; ‡ Percent of total potassium of applied stonemeal; Ł The values were implied as 50% of applied N, P, and K.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Susanti, W.I.; Cholidah, S.N.; Agus, F. Agroecological Nutrient Management Strategy for Attaining Sustainable Rice Self-Sufficiency in Indonesia. Sustainability 2024, 16, 845. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020845

AMA Style

Susanti WI, Cholidah SN, Agus F. Agroecological Nutrient Management Strategy for Attaining Sustainable Rice Self-Sufficiency in Indonesia. Sustainability. 2024; 16(2):845. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020845

Chicago/Turabian Style

Susanti, Winda Ika, Sri Noor Cholidah, and Fahmuddin Agus. 2024. "Agroecological Nutrient Management Strategy for Attaining Sustainable Rice Self-Sufficiency in Indonesia" Sustainability 16, no. 2: 845. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020845

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop