Paper · 2001 · Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis

USE OF CONTROLLED RELEASE FERTILIZERS AND NITRIFICATION INHIBITORS TO INCREASE NITROGEN USE EFFICIENCY AND TO CONSERVE AIR ANDWATER QUALITY

S. Shoji; J. Delgado; A. Mosier; et al.

12
claims
20
verbatim quotes
310
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Field trials on controlled release fertilizers (CRF) and a nitrification inhibitor (NI) were conducted in order to show their potential to increase N use efficiency (NUE) and to conserve air and water quality. For this purpose, flood irrigated barley grown on a clay soil (Colorado, USA), center-pivot irrigated potato grown in a sandy field (Colorado, USA), and corn grown on a loamy soil at a large scale lysimeter (Fukushima, Japan) were selected. NI (dicyandiamide) and CRF (polyolefin coated urea) were capable of reducing N2O emissions from urea applied to the barley field by 81 % and 35 %, respectively. Total N fertilizer losses averaged 15 and 10 % in the NI and urea treatments, respectively. On the other hand, those from the CRF treatment averaged only 1.9 %, indicating that CRF showed the highest potential to increase N use efficiency. The trials in the potato field demonstrated that CRF could markedly increase NUE and tuber yields. A single basal application of CRF at planting (N rate, 112 kg ha−1) produced tuber yields comparable with those of traditional fertilizer applications (112 kg N ha−1)by basal dressing, 90 kg N ha−1 by topdressing and 67 kg N ha−1 by 8 fertilizations). The urea and CRF plots in the corn fields showed similar N2O emission patterns, having two high emission periods following the basal and topdressed N applications in the urea plots and the enhanced N release from a short linear formulation and a long sigmoidal formulation in the CRF plots, respectively. However, the total N2O emission value of the CRF plots was almost one third of that of the urea plots. The plant recovery of CRF N was almost two times of that of urea N. Finally, the authors discussed that contributions of CRF and NI to conserve air and water quality are basically due to maximizing NUE and reducing the N fertilization rate.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 12

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Dicyandiamide reduced N2O emissions from urea in a barley field by 81%.

Treatment
NI (dicyandiamide)e0
Outcome
N2O emissionse0
Direction
reducinge0
Value
81 %e0
Comparator
ureae0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“NI (dicyandiamide) and CRF (polyolefin coated urea) were capable of reducing N2O emissions from urea applied to the barley field by 81 % and 35 %, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 451–610 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Polyolefin coated urea reduced N2O emissions from urea in a barley field by 35%.

Treatment
CRF (polyolefin coated urea)e0
Outcome
N2O emissionse0
Direction
reducinge0
Value
35 %e0
Comparator
ureae0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“NI (dicyandiamide) and CRF (polyolefin coated urea) were capable of reducing N2O emissions from urea applied to the barley field by 81 % and 35 %, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 451–610 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Total nitrogen fertilizer loss averaged 15% with nitrification inhibitor in the barley trial.

Treatment
NIe0
Outcome
Total N fertilizer lossese0
Value
15e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Total N fertilizer losses averaged 15 and 10 % in the NI and urea treatments, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 612–702 · show in text ↑
e1

“barley field”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 567–579 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Total nitrogen fertilizer loss averaged 10% under urea in the barley trial.

Treatment
ureae0
Outcome
Total N fertilizer lossese0
Value
10 %e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Total N fertilizer losses averaged 15 and 10 % in the NI and urea treatments, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 612–702 · show in text ↑
e1

“barley field”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 567–579 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Total nitrogen fertilizer loss under controlled release fertilizer averaged 1.9%, the lowest reported loss.

Treatment
CRF treatmente0
Outcome
Total N fertilizer lossese1
Direction
increaseinferrede0
Value
1.9 %e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“those from the CRF treatment averaged only 1.9 %, indicating that CRF showed the highest potential to increase N use efficiency”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 723–850 · show in text ↑
e1

“Total N fertilizer losses”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 612–637 · show in text ↑
e2

“barley field”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 567–579 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Controlled release fertilizer markedly increased nitrogen use efficiency in potato.

Treatment
CRFe0
Outcome
NUEe0
Direction
increasee0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“trials in the potato field demonstrated that CRF could markedly increase NUE and tuber yields”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 856–949 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Controlled release fertilizer markedly increased potato tuber yield.

Treatment
CRFe0
Outcome
tuber yieldse0
Direction
increasee0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“trials in the potato field demonstrated that CRF could markedly increase NUE and tuber yields”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 856–949 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

A single 112 kg ha−1 basal CRF application produced potato tuber yields comparable with traditional fertilizer applications.

Treatment
single basal application of CRF at planting (N rate, 112 kg ha−1)e0
Outcome
tuber yieldse0
Direction
comparablee0
Comparator
traditional fertilizer applicationse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum tuberosum
Solanum tuberosum · TaxonScott Bauer, USDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“A single basal application of CRF at planting (N rate, 112 kg ha−1) produced tuber yields comparable with those of traditional fertilizer applications (112 kg N ha−1)by basal dressing, 90 kg N ha−1 by topdressing and 67 kg N ha−1 by 8 fertilizations)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 951–1201 · show in text ↑
e1

“potato field”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 870–882 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Urea and CRF plots in corn fields showed similar N2O emission patterns, each with two high emission periods.

Treatment
CRFe0
Outcome
N2O emission patternse0
Direction
similare0
Value
twoe0
Comparator
ureae0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The urea and CRF plots in the corn fields showed similar N2O emission patterns, having two high emission periods”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1203–1315 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Total N2O emissions in corn CRF plots were almost one third of those in urea plots.

Treatment
CRFe0
Outcome
total N2O emission valuee0
Direction
lowerinferrede0
Value
almost one thirde0
Comparator
ureae0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“total N2O emission value of the CRF plots was almost one third of that of the urea plots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1521–1609 · show in text ↑
e1

“corn fields”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1233–1244 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Plant recovery of CRF nitrogen in corn was almost twice that of urea nitrogen.

Treatment
CRF Ne0
Outcome
plant recoverye0
Direction
higherinferrede0
Value
almost two timese0
Comparator
urea Ne0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The plant recovery of CRF N was almost two times of that of urea N”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1611–1677 · show in text ↑
e1

“corn fields”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1233–1244 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors attributed air and water quality benefits of CRF and NI to maximizing NUE and reducing nitrogen fertilization rate.

Treatment
CRF and NIe0
Outcome
conserve air and water qualitye0
Qualifier
maximizing NUE and reducing the N fertilization ratee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“contributions of CRF and NI to conserve air and water quality are basically due to maximizing NUE and reducing the N fertilization rate”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1715–1850 · show in text ↑
e1

“flood irrigated barley grown on a clay soil”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 228–271 · show in text ↑

nitrification inhibitor · environment: emissions · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

nitrogen · yield · Solanum tuberosum (potato)Results differ

132 papers: 109 positive, 23 negative or no effect

22 papers in the same direction as this paper · 109 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. no effect

128 papers more in this group

See all 132 papers →

nitrogen · environment: emissions · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 1 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
See all 3 papers →

fertilization · environment: emissions · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Positive and negative results

8 papers: 6 positive, 2 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. positive

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 papers →

fertilization · nutrient: efficiency · Solanum tuberosum (potato)Positive and negative results

14 papers: 10 positive, 4 negative or no effect

9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. negative

10 papers more in this group

See all 14 papers →

fertilization · environment: emissions · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

67 papers: 37 positive, 30 negative or no effect

36 papers in the same direction as this paper · 30 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

63 papers more in this group

See all 67 papers →

fertilization · nutrient: content · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Positive and negative results

120 papers: 96 positive, 24 negative or no effect

95 papers in the same direction as this paper · 21 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

116 papers more in this group

See all 120 papers →

fertilization · yield · Solanum tuberosum (potato)Positive and negative results

450 papers: 394 positive, 56 negative or no effect

393 papers in the same direction as this paper · 48 in the opposite direction · 8 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. negative

446 papers more in this group

See all 450 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.