Nitrogen-use efficiency and economic efficiency of slow-release N fertilisers applied to irrigated turfs in a Mediterranean environment

Abstract

The effect of three fertilisers that delay the bioavailability of nitrogen (N) in the soil was compared with ammonium nitrate and a zero N control in two irrigated turfs in NE Portugal. The fertilisers used were: Floranid permanent 16-7-15 (slow-release, IBDU/Isodur fertiliser); Basacote plus 9M 16-8-12 (controlled-release fertiliser, copolymer ethylene acrylic); Nitroteck 20-8-10 (stabilized fertiliser, dicyandiamide as nitrification inhibitor ? coating with polyterpene) and Nitrolusal (ammonium nitrate, 20.5% N), applied all at a rate of 120 kg N ha -1 . Nitrolusal was split into two fractions of 60 kg N ha -1 . Phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) rates were balanced among treatments by using superphosphate (18% P 2 O 5 ) and potassium chloride (60% K 2 O). The turf dry matter (DM) yield and N concentration in dry material were determined from several cuts of biomass throughout the growing season. Based on DM yield, N concentration in dry material and fertilisation costs, indices of N use efficiency and economic efficiency were estimated. Soil nitrate levels were monitored by using anion exchange membranes inserted directly into the soil. Basacote gave significantly lower DM yields than the other fertilised treatments. The apparent N recovery of Basacote was also the lowest. The results showed that Basacote released less N than that required for an adequate plant growth in the beginning of the growing season, hampered the flush of spring growth. Furthermore, the release period of this Basacote formulation, in the environmental conditions of these experiments, seemed to be longer than the length of the growing season. Nitroteck and Floranid yielded similar or even higher DM and apparent N recovery values than did Nitrolusal. The indices of economic efficiency ordered the fertilisers as Nitroteck [ Nitrolusal [ Floranid [ Basacote or Nitrolusal [ Nitroteck [ Floranid [ Basacote, if the costs of P and K fertilisers used to balance the P and K rates in the experimental design were, respectively, taken or not taken into account.

Effects of a controlled-release fertilizer on yield, nutrient uptake, and fertilizer usage efficiency in early ripening rapeseed (Brassica napus L.)

“…In practice, the use of slow and controlled release fertilizers and/or stabilized fertilizers is primarily increased in greenhouses, golf courses, and professional lawn management, as well as by consumers (home and garden) and landscape gardeners (Arrobas et al, 2011).…”

Polyolefin-coated Urea Improves Nitrogen Use Efficiency and Net Profitability of Rice-rice Cropping Systems

“…Calculations of NUE, N agronomic efficiency (NAE) and partial factor productivity of applied N (PFPN) were respectively accorded to Arrobas et al (2011), Cassman et al (1996and 1998. Financial budgets were used to estimate cost and return for a 2-yr crop sequence.…”

“…Obviously, a higher net economic return in crop production relies on a lower cost of per unit N input through a higher yield. For instance, economic efficiency was greater when using three slow-release N fertilizers, compared to the chemical ammonium nitrate in irrigated turfs (Arrobas et al, 2011). However, limited information is available how POCU applications could increase net economic return from rice production (Guo et al, 2010).…”

An Overview on the Use of Enhanced Efficiency Nitrogen Fertilizers in Irrigated Mediterranean Agriculture

“…For example, higher yields were found in irrigated wheat with a controlled release nitrogen fertilizer when compared to conventional split applied urea throughout the crop growing cycle [16]. Despite its large apparent advantages, the use of EEFs in agriculture has been lower due to doubts regarding the cost / benefit ratio and the insufficient demonstration of its advantages over conventional fertilizers [18,19]. Taking all this in consideration, finding both optimal irrigation and nitrogen application strategies, that is, finding a dynamic balance between these factors, adapting them to the very specific needs of each crop, it's a significant contribution not only to maintain soil and groundwater quality but also to preserve food safety and agriculture sustainability.…”