Premium
Enhanced‐efficiency fertilizers are not a panacea for resolving the nitrogen problem
Author(s) -
Li Tingyu,
Zhang Weifeng,
Yin Jiao,
Chadwick David,
Norse David,
Lu Yuelai,
Liu Xuejun,
Chen Xinping,
Zhang Fusuo,
Powlson David,
Dou Zhengxia
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
global change biology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 4.146
H-Index - 255
eISSN - 1365-2486
pISSN - 1354-1013
DOI - 10.1111/gcb.13918
Subject(s) - nitrification , environmental science , fertilizer , agronomy , population , yield (engineering) , cropping , productivity , nitrogen , agriculture , chemistry , biology , ecology , economics , materials science , macroeconomics , organic chemistry , metallurgy , demography , sociology
Improving nitrogen (N) management for greater agricultural output while minimizing unintended environmental consequences is critical in the endeavor of feeding the growing population sustainably amid climate change. Enhanced‐efficiency fertilizers ( EEF s) have been developed to better synchronize fertilizer N release with crop uptake, offering the potential for enhanced N use efficiency ( NUE ) and reduced losses. Can EEF s play a significant role in helping address the N management challenge? Here we present a comprehensive analysis of worldwide studies published in 1980–2016 evaluating four major types of EEF s (polymer‐coated fertilizers PCF , nitrification inhibitors NI , urease inhibitors UI , and double inhibitors DI , i.e. urease and nitrification inhibitors combined) regarding their effectiveness in increasing yield and NUE and reducing N losses. Overall productivity and environmental efficacy depended on the combination of EEF type and cropping systems, further affected by biophysical conditions. Best scenarios include: (i) DI used in grassland ( n = 133), averaging 11% yield increase, 33% NUE improvement, and 47% decrease in aggregated N loss (sum of NO 3 ‐ , NH 3 , and N 2 O, totaling 84 kg N/ha); (ii) UI in rice‐paddy systems ( n = 100), with 9% yield increase, 29% NUE improvement, and 41% N‐loss reduction (16 kg N/ha). EEF efficacies in wheat and maize systems were more complicated and generally less effective. In‐depth analysis indicated that the potential benefits of EEF s might be best achieved when a need is created, for example, by downward adjusting N application from conventional rate. We conclude that EEF s can play a significant role in sustainable agricultural production but their prudent use requires firstly eliminating any fertilizer mismanagement plus the implementation of knowledge‐based N management practices.