Controlled-release urea for winter wheat in southern Alberta

McKenzie, Ross H.; Bremer, E.; Middleton, A. B.; Pfiffner, P G; Dowbenko, R.E.

doi:10.4141/s06-055

Cited by 51 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Notably, CRU was applied with the seed about 6 months prior to the GSP spring broadcast urea application in 2013. The placement and timing of the CRU AMP and urea GSP were not the same because fall-applied urea was not a standard practice (due to shallow gravel contact) and CRU can release too slowly to benefit wheat if spring broadcast in the NGP (McKenzie et al 2007). The split application may not have been effective at reducing leaching in 2013 because on Field C the second application was completed on 23 May, immediately prior to 180 mm of precipitation in the next 12 days, enough to move substantial UAN below the root zone before it could be used by the crop.…”

Section: Nitrate Leaching Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fallow replacement and alternative nitrogen management for reducing nitrate leaching in a semiarid region

John

Jones

Ewing

et al. 2017

Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nitrate (NO 3 -) leaching into groundwater is a growing global concern for health, environmental, and economic reasons, yet little is known about the effects of agricultural management practices on the magnitude of leaching, especially in dryland semiarid regions. Groundwater nitrate-nitrogen (nitrate-N) concentrations above the drinking water standard of 10 mg L -1 are common in the Judith River Watershed (JRW) of semiarid central Montana. A 2-year study conducted on commercial farms in the JRW compared nitrate leaching rates across three alternative management practices (AMP: pea, controlled release urea, split application of N) and three grower standard practices (GSP: summer fallow, conventional urea, single application of urea). Crop biomass and soil were collected at ten sampling locations on each side of a management interface separating each AMP from its corresponding GSP. A nitrogen (N) mass balance approach was used to estimate the amount of nitrate leached annually. In 2013, less nitrate leached the year after the pea AMP (18 ± 2.5 kg N ha -1 ) than the year after the fallow GSP (54 ± 3.6 kg N ha -1 ), whereas the two AMP fertilizer treatments had no effect on nitrate leaching compared to GSPs. In 2014, leaching rates did not differ between each AMP and its corresponding GSP. The results suggest that replacing fallow with pea has the greatest potential to reduce nitrate leaching. Future leaching research should likely focus on practices that decrease deep percolation, such as fallow replacement with annual or perennial crops, more than on N fertilizer practices.

show abstract

Section: Nitrate Leaching Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fallow replacement and alternative nitrogen management for reducing nitrate leaching in a semiarid region

John

Jones

Ewing

et al. 2017

Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, in studies comparing urea and PCU applied at seeding for winter wheat, grain yield and protein concentration were similar as long as there was sufficient separation between the seed and applied urea (Middleton et al 2004;McKenzie et al 2007;Irvine et al 2010). The similar efficacy of PCU and urea in these studies was possibly due to relatively dry conditions and negligible over-winter N loss.…”

mentioning

confidence: 81%

“…In more humid regions of the prairies, spring broadcast ammonium nitrate was generally more effective than fall N application due to the greater risk of over-winter N loss (Grant et al 1985;Fowler and Brydon 1989a, b;Campbell et al 1991;Johnston and Fowler 1991a, b). For spring broadcast application, urea was less effective than ammonium nitrate in three of nine trials in a study by Fowler and Brydon (1989a), but equally effective in other studies (Campbell et al 1991;Middleton et al 2004;McKenzie et al 2007;Irvine et al 2010), despite the potential for volatilization losses of ammonia from broadcast urea (Harrison and Webb 2001).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The potential for N losses from fall-applied fertilizer may be reduced by application of PCU (McKenzie et al 2007). However, in studies comparing urea and PCU applied at seeding for winter wheat, grain yield and protein concentration were similar as long as there was sufficient separation between the seed and applied urea (Middleton et al 2004;McKenzie et al 2007;Irvine et al 2010).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Influence of N fertilization method on weed growth, grain yield and grain protein concentration in no-till winter wheat

Beres¹,

Harker²,

Clayton³

et al. 2010

Can. J. Plant Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

. 2010. Influence of N fertilization method on weed growth, grain yield and grain protein concentration in no-till winter wheat. Can. J. Plant Sci. 90: 637Á644. Applying polymer-coated urea (PCU) instead of uncoated urea may benefit winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) production by reducing weed growth or increasing grain yield and protein concentration. Field trials were conducted for 3 yr under rainfed and irrigated conditions in Lethbridge and 2 yr under rainfed conditions in Lacombe to determine potential benefits of substituting urea with PCU for typical winter wheat production practices in Alberta. Four factors were included in each experiment: (1) urea type (urea, PCU and a 50:50 blend of urea and PCU), (2) application method (fall side-band vs. spring broadcast), (3) N rate (1) and 1.5 ) recommended N rate), and (4) herbicide application (none vs. full). Herbicide application substantially reduced weed biomass at all site-years, but only increased average grain yield by 9%. Dicot weed biomass was not affected by fertilizer treatment, but monocot weed biomass was less for fall banded than spring broadcast application and less for urea than PCU or blend at the 1 )N rate. Over all site-years, substitution of 50 or 100% of urea with PCU increased grain yield by an average of 4.3% and reduced protein concentration by 1.3%. Substitution of urea with PCU had the largest impact at the site-year with most severe drought stress, indicating that PCU benefits were probably due to factors other than reduced N loss. Further study is required to evaluate potential benefits from substitution of urea with PCU over a wide range of environmental conditions.

show abstract

“…Other researchers have observed that coated urea increased the yields of wheat (Fan et al 2004), barley and potato (Shoji et al 2001), and onion (Drost et al 2002), and nutrient use efficiency (Shoji et al 2001), but had no effect on the protein content of wheat (Peltonen and Virtanen 1994). In southern Alberta, coated and uncoated urea produced no significant differences in the seed yield and N uptake of winter wheat (McKenzie et al 2007). These divergent experimental results suggest that: (i) CRU vary greatly in their effectiveness with field conditions, i.e., may not be beneficial under some field conditions, e.g., dry soil in southern Alberta; and (ii) some forms of CRU and its placement method may not effectively synchronize N release with crop demand.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of controlled-release urea on seed yield and N concentration, and N use efficiency of small grain crops grown on Dark Gray Luvisols

Malhi¹,

Soon²,

Grant³

et al. 2010

Can. J. Soil. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim was to compare the effects of controlled-release urea (CRU) vs. conventional urea (hereafter called urea) on seed yield and N (i.e., protein) concentration, and N use efficiency (NUE). The treatments were combinations of tillage system [conventional tillage (CT) and no tillage (NT)], and N source (urea, CRU and a blended mixture), placement method (spring-banded, fall-banded and split application) and application rate (0Á90 kg N ha (1 ). There was no tillage ) fertilizer treatment interaction on the measured crop variables. Seed yield and crop N uptake and, to a lesser degree, seed N concentration generally increased with N application to 90 kg N ha (1 . Fall-banded CRU or urea generally produced lower crop yield and N uptake than spring-banded CRU or urea. Split application of urea (half each at seeding and tillering) resulted in higher seed yield and N concentration in at least 3 of 7 site-years than did CRU and urea applied at a similar rate. A blend of urea and CRU was as effective as spring-banded CRU (at Star City only). Seed yield, N recovery and NUE were higher with spring-banded CRU than urea in 2 site-years, and similar to urea in other site-years. We conclude that for boreal soils of the Canadian prairies, spring-banded CRU is as effective as urea, and in some years more effective, in increasing crop yield and N recovery; however, urea split application can be even more effective in addition to having an advantage in managing risk. TM is used for the convenience of the reader and no endorsement whatsoever of this product is intended.Abbreviations: CRU, controlled-release urea; CT, conventional tillage; FB, fall-banded; NPE, N physiological efficiency; NRE, N recovery efficiency; NT, no tillage; SB, spring-banded For personal use only.

show abstract

Controlled-release urea for winter wheat in southern Alberta

Cited by 51 publications

References 11 publications

Fallow replacement and alternative nitrogen management for reducing nitrate leaching in a semiarid region

Fallow replacement and alternative nitrogen management for reducing nitrate leaching in a semiarid region

Influence of N fertilization method on weed growth, grain yield and grain protein concentration in no-till winter wheat

Influence of controlled-release urea on seed yield and N concentration, and N use efficiency of small grain crops grown on Dark Gray Luvisols

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About